Neil Postman Responses Essay Example

Neil Postman Responses Paper Part I On page 11, Postman quotes Niels Bohr as saying, The opposite of a correct statement is an incorrect statement, but the opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth. What does this statement mean? Do you agree with it? Why or why not? Opposition creates two points of view and provides a stronger meaning for both sides. A correct statement, â€Å"I like ice cream,† is opposed by the incorrect statement, â€Å"I don’t like ice cream. If I only observe the correct statement, I have no reason to justify my liking of ice cream, but if I am challenged with the incorrect statement, I am forced to consider why I like ice cream—I like it because it’s cold, sweet, and creamy. A profound truth, deep and unyielding, cannot be proven false; therefore, the opposition to it can only be another profound truth that acts as any opposition would, creating another point of view that provides a force to clarify or strengthen both truths. When one can find greater clarity in opposing truths, it allows one to gain perspective to widen and justify one’s own beliefs. I agree with Postman’s claim, â€Å"it is better to have access to more than one profound truth†¦to hold comfortably in one’s mind the validity and usefulness of two contradictory truths is the source of tolerance, openness, and most important, a sense of humor†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (1996, p. 11). I consider Economic Utility, a profound truth that defines the purpose of education to â€Å"prepare children for competent entry into the economic life of a community† (Postman, 1996, p. 27). To oppose it, I consider the profound truth of Consumership that defines the purpose of education to provide students with the means to acquire goods. What does the former mean without the latter? It means simply that students should have jobs when they finish school. What does the latter mean, without the former? It means simply that students should be able to purchase goods when they finish school. When I considered both in opposition, Economic Utility became more about contributing to the productivity of the community, being able to provide the goods and services necessary for the well being of family and neighbors. We will write a custom essay sample on Neil Postman Responses specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Neil Postman Responses specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Neil Postman Responses specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Consumership became more about individuals consuming goods for the sake of independent wealth. â€Å"The similarity between this god [of Consumership] and the god of Economic Utility is obvious. † (Postman, 1996, p. 33). First glance reveals this much, but observing the opposition of the profound truths, reveals much more of the truth in each of them. I would agree with Bohr’s statement because I value the opportunity to observe differences in points of view, and to explore meanings beyond face-value. It is the recognition of another profound truth as the opposition to another that allows me to do this. If I accept a profound truth only because I’m told that it is a profound truth, I have not gained any perspective to make that profound truth worth following. Opposing it is the only way to create meaning in it for me. Part II Later on that page, Postman states, Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly better to have one profound truth, one god, one narrative, than to have none. Postman admits that all gods are flawed. Why is it better to have a flawed god than no god at all? I would analogize Postman’s view of a flawed god to being dropped in a forest with nothing but a compass. The compass is minimal, and hardly useful without a map. It doesn’t tell you where you are, where you came from, or where you’re going. It is flawed in many ways, especially if we hold it to the standard to which we have grown accustomed—the GPS device. Despite its flaws, the compass is a resource, something that provides orientation and ensures that the wanderer isn’t merely traveling in endless circles. While a compass can’t promise that the wanderer won’t be lost, it still affords him a sense of direction by which he may somehow choose a path to lead him out of the forest. Without orientation, North, South, East and West have no meaning. Without a god, right and wrong, good and bad, love and hate have no meaning. When faced with a choice or decision, we weigh the options with a sense of what our god expects and are able to align the outcomes with the goals we seek. Not having a god generates internal conflict whereby any decisions made would be arbitrary, void of meaning, or irrelevant. Even if a narrative places one in hell, it is better to be there than to be nowhere. To be nowhere means to live in a barren culture, one that offers no vision of the past or future, no clear voice of authority, no organizing principles. † (Postman, 1996, p. 12). Gods are necessary to give us reason and purpose for doing what we do. While a flawed god may sometimes have us confus ed or misguided, we can still count on that god to have at least created enough meaning in our lives to give us the ability to re-organize or find a new god. Consider a hypothetical story: If I were following the god of Science and were to discover its flaw in that too many of its progressions were made by accident, I may be at a loss for what my purpose is if scientific discovery occurs as often by chance as it does by decisive action. How is Science to guide my choices if every choice is just as likely as it is not to move me forward? I am not completely lost if I discover this flaw and abandon the god of Science, for the god of Science has already shown me that, even if discovered by accident, there is reason for why things are. Up until now, I have aligned my decisions with the path of discovering reason, but that past can still orient me on a new path, should I choose a new god to follow, say The Spaceship Earth. The Spaceship Earth god leads me to consider how my actions affect the planet. However, I would know very little about how those actions affect the well-being of the planet had I not known any of the scientific reasons for the current state of the planet. Despite the flaws in the god of Science, I was able to find reason and purpose in a new god because of my orientation with the god of Science. I could still have adopted a new god without having a former god, but the point to make is that even if the god chosen to follow is flawed, it still serves to create an origin and give us a sense of direction for our future. Therefore, it is better to have a flawed god than to have no god at all. Part III Postman describes several false gods. Technology is one of them. Why does Postman believe that technology is a god? What is flawed about the technology god? Can the technology god still be a god that serves? Why or why not? Be sure to think about the difference between a god that serves and something that serves but is not a god. A god is a story that â€Å"tells of origins and envisions a future, a story that constructs ideals, prescribes rules of conduct, provides a source of authority, and above all, gives a sense of continuity and purpose. † (Postman, 1996, p. 5). Having spawned from the Science god, the story of our origins would be shared as â€Å"Probably an accident† (Postman, 1996, p. 9). Of our future, the god of Technology suggests that our â€Å"Our destiny is to replace ourselves with machines† (Postman, 1996, p. 0). Postman believes that those who follow the path of the technology god â€Å"must shape their needs and aspirations to the possibilities of technology. † (1996, p. 10). With this statement, he assigns authority to the god of technology. These represent just a few of the ways that Postman defines technology as a god. The god of Technology is flawed be cause as it has come to be, the god of Technology has primarily served us with an influx of information, but has given us little purpose for the information acquired. Technology seems to have only increased the rate at which information is sent and received, but has not given us much use for the information. Technology has served us â€Å"the radio and the Victrola†¦16-millimeter film†¦closed-circuit television, then 8-millimeter film, then teacher-proof textbooks. Now computers. † (Postman, 1996, p. 50). It was at one point thought that these developing technologies would one day replace teachers, and that vision may have been realized if it were ever the purpose of schools to simply disseminate information. Postman reminds us of the more important functions of our schools—teaching socialization, responsibility, and civility. He emphasizes that the nature of computers places students in isolation, the exact opposite of the environment that we envisioned for our schools. The technology god cannot be a â€Å"god that serves,† for it doesn’t serve us with reason and purpose. Though we may let our lives revolve around technology, we don’t let it dictate matters of true value. Instead, we use it as a tool to assist us in making decisions that are served by other gods. I would deem technology as something that serves but is not a â€Å"god. As Postman restates Alan Kay’s sentiments, â€Å"any problems the schools cannot solve without computers, they cannot solve with them. † (1996, p. 45). If Technology were a god to serve, it would lead us with greater direction and provide us with deeper insight to solve the problems we face. Instead it serves us wi th the means to acquire the information we need to solve our problems. The technology itself doesn’t orient us toward the decisions that have to be made—technology is just a tool to serve us. Part IV How would Postman classify the difference between a flawed god and a false god? Do you agree with the distinction that Postman makes? Why or why not? A flawed god could be any god, as Postman remarks, â€Å"all gods are imperfect† (1996, p. 11). A false god is one that guides its believers toward an unjustified end. It has its followers driven by a common belief in a goal that is not certain to be realized. The primary difference is that a flawed god can provide means that direct one toward a justified end, while a false god provides means that lead to a dead end. I understand Postman’s subtle distinction between flawed and false gods, but don’t agree that the two are worth distinguishing. Postman makes little distinction between the two, but despite the differences he does point out, I don’t see the rationale in making a point to distinguish the two. In either case, they both have the potential to serve us in some way or another. If all gods are flawed, and even if some are false, being able to identify any god for one’s own sake is worthwhile in creating meaning in one’s endeavors. Whether flawed or false, the determination that a god inspires has the capacity to set its followers in an â€Å"auto-drive† mentality that blinds them from the flaws or falsehoods that may be observed by others. While a bystander might be able to perceive the bumps along the path or the void at the end of the path, the followers who have committed themselves to the god will be so determined as to not notice what’s wrong until further down the path. Regardless, people will find direction and motivation. Even if followers fall upon the misgivings of their gods, the result is not necessarily tragic, as discussed above in Part II. After all, it is better to have a god, flawed or false, than to have none at all. Resources Postman, Neil. (1996). The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. Vintage Books, New York, NY.