Woo, well it's been a semi-productive day so far. I just finished filing my taxes, I read and wrote in my journal already. Now I'm ready to share something with you! My faithful readers. This will most likely be a long one today. As I was reading it I was trying see if I could possibly cut something from the beginning or end and it still make sense as a standalone quote and sadly I could not. So here it goes:
"Our attention here is on how forms of public discourse regulate and even dictate what kind of content can issue from such forms.
To take a simple example of what this means, consider the primitive technology of smoke signals. While I do not know exactly what content was once carried in the smoke signals of American Indians, I can safely guess that it did not include philosophical argument. Puffs of smoke are insufficiently complex to express ideas on the nature of existence, and even if they were not, a Cherokee philosopher would run short of either wood or blankets long before he reached his second axiom. You cannot use smoke to do philosophy. Its form excludes the content.
To take an example closer to home: As I suggested earlier, it is implausible to imagine that anyone like our twenty-seventh President, the multi-chinned, three-hundred-pound William Howard Taft, could be put forward as a presidential candidate in today's world. The shape of a man's body is largely irrelevant to the shape of his ideas when he is addressing a public in writing or on the radio or, for that matter, in smoke signals. But it is quite relevant on television. The grossness of a three-hundred-pound image, even a talking one, would easily overwhelm any logical or spiritual subtleties conveyed by speech. For on television, discourse is conducted largely through visual imagery. Which is to say that television gives us a conversation in images, not words. The emergence of the image-manager in the political arena and the concomitant decline of the speech writer attest to the fact that television demands a different kind of content from other media. You cannot do political philosophy on television. Its form works against the content." ~ Neil Postman
What do you all think? Do you think this is true? With the presidential election coming up soon do we as Americans put too much emphasis on physical appearance and other such visual things to make our decision. What about in other points in life? Friends, family, relationships? I think it's interesting how things have changed so much. Think about before writing was even done. All people had was speech (if not just grunts), drawings maybe, symbols. We've come a long way as humans. But are we going the right way?
Currently listening to: "Give it all" by Rise Against
-J
I have to agree that we have come along way but we have also drifted further apart as a Nation and as civilized beings. I agree that through modern communications e.g. internet tabloids and "reality" shows many people rely on "judging the book by its cover" instead of giving the spine a crack and delving into the intricate depths of the being within.
ReplyDeleteI have been at both ends of the spectrum of being judged because I am overweight and judging others that may not appear "normal". It hurts to be judged by appearance alone especially when I do have some interesting thoughts swimming around in my head. However, I have also learned that those that my judge me by appearance if I do get them to "crack my spine" for a bit... I find that they were the dull ones... at least in my opinion. :P
You speak of the Presidential elections... four years ago a large majority of the election was will a WOMAN get into office or an African American man... if that is not judging by appearance instead of focusing on issue this Country needed addressed....I would have to say we as a Nation tend to "judge all by the cover" instead of the content.
Speaking only of elections I'm very torn on who to vote for and usually end up not voting. I honestly don't think the nominees are any better than the next. It seems to be nothing but a popularity race and who can give the most promises that won't happen. I think we as Americans need to step up and say we want to pick the nominees, but who knows how that would work. Or who would get picked. Maybe Dr. Dre? I don't know haha. Basically the 2 major parties put in who they think will win, not who would be the best president. And sadly, that's a doomed form of government.
ReplyDelete