Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

In this one article Nicholas Carr criticises the internet with an answer to his own question, "Is the internet (Google) making us unable to think?" Carr opens us his argument by discussing a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which a man is disabling the memory circuits of HAL a robot with artificial intelligence. HAL's only response to this was his fear and pain as it felt each one of its memory circuits being removed. From this description, Carr moves into his question by stating that he can feel the mind of humanity changing due to internet influence. Carr moves on to state that the internet changes thinking though its processes of quick information. The internet works to shift human thought from a concentrated innundation of focused ideas, into a widely spread surface of ideas that google deems "related". Humans now have to work harder to focus or think deeply on any one subject. Carr describes how Humans now think as "bouncing" from material to material, and concludes by stating that most men cannot or do not read anything larger than a few pages, but instead skim the sources that they find then move one. Carr continues by discussing how technology influences the thought of men. His biggest example this idea of techonolgy reform ing human thought, was the mechanical clock. Carr stated that this modernization reformed human thinking away from the old experiences and senses to a stricter time in which everything occurs at a specific time and also that everything can be measured and tested. Following his discussion on techonolgy, Carr talked about how Frederick Winslow Taylor changed the focus of industry from the benefit of the worker to the benefit and advancement of the factories themselves. Industrial workers soon became merely mechanized workers which only performed simple tasks without thought or extra input. Carr then applies the story of Taylor to Google and states that Google only cares to provide a better mind and a "more efficient" sense of knowledge. This "more efficient" knowledge forces a shift from deep human thought and into a shallower surface thought in which the masses do not true understand anything but merely are given the false illusion through what they have "read". Carr continues his argument by talking about how writing shifted human though away from memory and more dependant on what is written, and finally concludes his argument by rediscussing the scene from 2001 and states that people are now giving away their humanity and trading it for the mind of a machine.

Nicholas Carr's logic in this argument parallels enlightenment though, especially Immanuel Kant's idea that men should think for themselves and should not allow others to think for them. With Carr the problem is that men are not only refusing the think for themselves but are allowing a machine to think for them. This also parallel's with Paulo Feire's problem with the system of education, in that it "mechanizes" human thought and not only divides students from the world but also asserts the superiority of the teacher over the student. The internet does this same thing in that it cuts off men from the depth of the world through constant changing topics, and also asserts itself as the supreme source of knowledge, therefore suppressing its users into a sense that they nkow nothing and the the internet knows all. Finally Carr's ideas also parallel with Michael Foucault's ideas of humanity. Foucault believes that men generally want to give up their freedom and free thought in order to be ruled. This parallels with Carr's problem with Google in that Google's aim is to entirely remove the free thought of the "obsolete" men and to mechanize them into a system of artificial intelligence which "knows everything".

Is Google an avoidable or necessary obstacle in the progression of human thought?

Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Minister's Black Veil"

Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Minister's Black Veil"

In his story, "The Minister's Black Veil", Hawthorne shows an example of how changing one part of a person entirely changes how others view them. This story begins on a normal colonial sabboth worship service. However, much to the dismay of everyone around, the pastor (Mr. Hooper) of the congregation enters the crowd with a black veil over his face. The pastor does all of his normal rutines before the crowd and acts and speaks in exactly the same manner as previously. The only difference between then and now was that now he had a black veil covering his face. As a result the congregation is terrified and begins to wonder why Mr. Hooper would hide his face. They all quickly become nervious and wait to see him remove the veil but he never does such. Even his own wife cannot urge him to take the veil off. After which point everyone has abandoned Mr. Hooper and has left him in his state. Finally at his death, he is asked to take the veil off, at which point he refuses saying that the veil shall never be removed on earth. Angry and curious as to what reason, Mr. Hooper would keep the veil on so long, the pastor who was preparing him for death asked him what Mr. Hooper had done to shame himself that he had to cover his face. Finally as his dying words, Mr. Hooper sat up and said that each person around him had on them a black veil.

Here Hawthorne covers two different ideas. First Hawthorn's "The Minister's Black Veil" is a representation of Poe's idea that "Fear is not of Germany. It is of the mind!" and Emerson's idea of perseption and how we men can only see what our emotions can show us. These idea both come from the same action of the Black Veil. Despite the fact that Mr. Hooper himself did not change at all,besidesthe addition of the black veil. Because of the one element of the black veil, everyone had fear. Everyoe was afraid of what they saw and what it could mean. Here no actual thing is scaring the people but it is the mere action of the people scaring themselves through their own thoughts that leads them to this fear. This fear forces them into the hopes that they might see everything return to normal and that Mr. Hooper might remove his black veil. This never happens but instead, Hooper insists on another idea. Hooper's dying words bring about another interesting thought. Before death Hooper said that he saw upon the faces of everyone around him a black veil. Here Hooper has stated that each person around him hides who they are from each other. The only difference then between Hooper and the people is that Hooper admits that he is hiding something from the world and shows them that there is something hidden. The others around him hide their true selves and instead hide behind an imaginary black veil under which they know that no one can find their true selves. Fear therefore only occurs in this story when the act of hiding seomthing is admitted.

On earth are black veils necessary? Is it possible for one to take his own black veil off or should he continue to hide it forever?

Walt Whitman's "The Wound-Dresser"

Walt Whitman's "The Wound-Dresser"

In his poem, Walt Whitman describes the experience of an old military Civil War doctor.He begins by showing the doctor's sorrow for his patients and describing the outrage of their pain. This doctor is always among the dead and dieing youth of the army. Shifting from his first stanza, Whitman begins to describe how these men die.He states that through their bravery and their high hopes they run quickly into battle and are just as quickly slain and sent to the hospital.He reemphasizes his point of how quick and insignificant each of there actions are by comparing it to an analogy stating that no matter how large a mark they make in the beaches of time, they will eventually be washed away and forgotten.He continues by describing how through constant works of treating the dieing, he (the wound-dresser) no longer misses them and each work that he does becomes a habitual action of which he must continue to perform despite the sad fate that most of his patients will experience. However despite his habitual actions he still maintains a sense of sadness and empathy for each individual.Following these expressions, Whitman re-emphasizes the gruesome work of the wound dresser by describing a few of his patients.Finally Whitman concludes by describing the sorrow which the wound dresser feels following each patient whom the wound dresser tries to help,but most are young and therefore are also too innocent for death,but he still has to move on despite his sorrow.

In this poem, Whitman quite clearly seems to criticize war. This can be seen from a number of different quotes in which Whitman states that despite how great the actions of war seem,they will neither last nor will they be worth the pains that result. At the end of his poem, the Whitman mourns the death of his patients. This mourning emphasizes the outrage of the suffering of these men. He also talks about bravery, which he criticizes by saying,"was on side so brave? the other was equally brave;" (line 8). Here he criticizes the idea of being bravery stating that no one stands out in bravery. He follows this point saying that all of the individuals will then be forgotten. He states this by saying that, "So soon what is forgotten,and waves wash the imprints off the sand. No matter how much these people do, they and their works will still be forgotten eventually. Therefore as long as war persists, the wound dresser will be a sorrowful job in which the wound dresser must work to save but then forget those who died to the "bravery" of war.

If, as Whitman previously stated in one of his poems, all matter eventually returns to its original state and the same men which the wound dresser treats would still die anyway, then why should the wound dresser care about the individuals? Why should he feel sorrow for each of their deaths?

Walt Whitman's "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer"

Walt Whitman's "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer"

Walt Whitman's "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer" is a poem about a man who learns about astronomy. The narrator begins by describing his encounter with the "learn'd astronomer" and how the astronomer tried to explain to him through facts and data what astronomy was. The narrator soon loses interest in astronomy due to the astronomer and decides to figure it out for himself. Then the narrator enters nature and experience it for himself as sees perfection.

Multiple different ideas and parallels fit in with this passage. The first parallel lines up with Berger's "Ways of Seeing" in which Berger states that the problem with art is that people try to explain it to us and thereby corrupt our perception of it and stop us from fully understanding the art. This parallels with the problem of the astronomer. The astronomer continually is stating what he believes to be true and is surpressing the perception of the narrator. However the narrator does not fully fall for this "mystification" because he gets bored and instead goes out to discover it for himself. The fact that the narrator gets bored by the astronomer also brings into parallel transcendental ideas of nature. As Emerson declares in his "Nature", Nature is something that is perfectly true, it needs no explanation because it is its own explanation, and finally that we can only true understand nature through experience. The fact that nature needs no explanation is prevalent in the problem of the learn'd astronomer. In the eye of the transcendentalist the astronomer is redundant because he is merely explaining things which are self evident in nature. This therefore makes him boring and renders him useless. Therefore the narrator goes to nature to experience it for himself. This is how he truely understands nature through his own experience, because he is able to see it with his own eyes, nature's truth can therefore directly enter into him, without the hinderance or mininterpretation of the learn'd astronomer.

Astronomist have many tools with which they use to closely view and study the universe, and have also been studying the stars for many years. Therefore because they can see the stars better, would they not be better sources for understanding the stars than one's own personal experiences?

Resistance to Civil Government



Henry David Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government"

In his "Resistance to Civil Government", Henry David Thoreau gives an argument for why the power of government should be weakened and also for what citizens of government should do to fix their government. Thoreau begins his argument by stating his belief that the best government is the one which never governs. He defends his point by comparing government to a standing army and says that the standing army is a part of the "standing government" which works to suppress its people. Thoreau continues his point on oppressive government by stating that government does not do what the people do and therefore only oppresses the people and stops them from achieving even greater goals. After finishing his point on the oppressive government, Henry David Thoreau, however steps back from his original claim by saying that he understands that it is impractical to remove all government at the moment and therefore we should strive for a "better" government. He then leads into a discussion of morality and conscience stating how it comes from the masses, and also that not business can have conscience no matter what kind of people it has. Following this, Thoreau begins to talk about armed troops. Thoreau states that armed troops have no conscience due to their business, and also due to their training also have no humanity, because they follow in perfect submission to their government. Following from his point about the army, he continues to say that all government officials are inherently evil and should instead resist the government and give up their offices. Thoreau continues his argument by bringing up the issue of slavery and stating that he should not have the same government as slaves. He then changes topic slightly by bringing up the American Revolution and talking about the reasons that the colonists turned agaisnt Britian. Thoreau uses this topic of the Revolution to draw to a final claim about how the government "enslaves" its people and turns the position of "honest" men as the attackers or "invaders" who do not actually own the land that they wish to defend. Thoreau continues his argument by stating that men do not always do the "right" thing and instead tend to prefer other things. He uses Massachusetts merchants as an example stating that they only oppose abolistion because it would bring difficulty to southern farmers which would cause them (merchants) a lesser amount of profit than if things remained the same. Continuing in his discussion, Thoreau talks about how men state that they will do the right thing, but will not actually do what they say they will do, but instead will wait for others to do it first. He concludes this point by discussing how the voting system is flawed and how men should not vote just to vote, but instead should use voting to do what is right (be the one man who votes against slavery). Thoreau continues his argument by stating that even by voting for president you are submitting to the authority and oppressiveness of the government. He continues by saying that few "men" exist in America, and that those beings of America care only for their own betterment and good will. Thoreau continues by stating that it is not a man's job to end injustice but to make sure that they do not perform it. After that, Thoreau discusses the irony of how people who disapprove of government petition before acting. Following these points Thoreau goes on to discuss unjust laws and parts of government. He talks about how government forces its reforms to be worse than its evils. This makes it hard for wise individuals to organize and movement to reform the government laws. Thoreau continues saying that government actually hates its wise minority and works to remove it. he concldues this point by stating how me should go about reforming unjust laws. If the law is necessary, then it should be left alone and hoped to be made just later. If the law has some independent factor which only applies to it, then it may be reformed. Finally if the law causes you to perform injustice, then men should refuse to follow the law. Thoreau continues his argument by stating that instead of trying to do everything, men should focus on doing "something", so that they cannot so "something" wrong. Thoreau continues restating that people should not wait for others to act but should instead be the first ones to act, and concludes this point by stating, that in a government that unjustly puts a man in prison, prison in infact the place for the "honest" man. Because in prison a man is not a supporter of his government but instead is an opponent. Thoreau continues by talking about a "peaceful revolution" and restates how government officials shoul give up their offices. He then states that the more money men have the more controled they are by the government and their possessions and also the less "virtue" you have. Following his denounciation of money, Thoreau discusses the problems of taxes and states that he should not pay taxes which support services which he does not use, such as the church and the polls. Following his statement of not paying his poll tax, he opens up and tells his own captivity narrative in which he was put in prison into a place in which the government could only punish him physically for his intellectual complaints. Thoreau puts himself above the government stating that because the government is not intellectually superior to him, they instead act physcially superior. Thoreau portrays prison, not only as a bad place for punishment (they don't punish people well), but also as a place for people who are unjustly sent there. He makes this connection through the man whom he shared a room with in prison. Finally in the end of his captivity narative, he is angry because someone paid for his release, which thereby inhibited his reform attempts. Following his story of jail, Thoreau concludes his argument and states that government is only as strong as men allow it to be, and also that men therefore haev the responsibility to change government into a "better" form, until it reaches the perfect state in which it is no long seen nor needed.

Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government" has many Enlightenment aspects to it. Thoreau's ideas about the power of the people clearly parallels to an Enlightenment idea. Both characters speak clearly about how men not only had the power but also the right to rebel against their oppressive government. However, Thoreau takes this a step further by stating that all government is inherently oppressive and thereby should be reformed gradually until the active government no longer exists and its people can rule themselves. Thoreau specifically parallels many Enlightenment thinkers, in order to strengthen his own points. Thoreau uses the American Revolution especially to make a significant parallel in which he states that all active government is inherently oppressive and acts to suppress, enslave, and alienate its people.

Many questions could be asked in response to "Resistance to Civil Government".

If government should not oppress its people than what should it do when its people oppress each other, such as during the Gilded Age when the railroads and larger industries greatly oppressed their consumers?

If people should not have a "standing government" or a "standing army" than what can it due when it is attacked by foreignors, or bandits? The people themselves would not be strong enough or have the proper training to defend themselves, and as a result to their improper training and equipment (as they most likely would also not have teh equipment for fighting either) to defend themselves or their lands. The entire "oppressive" cycle of government would then repeat itself.