After reading the essay Two Cultures I must say that neither side truly won me over. I Suppose that if I had to pick a side it would be with Paglia since I would generally rather watch TV than read myself. What i really can't agree with either side on is their reasoning. Perhaps I just can't get my mind around their ideas but the things they say sound very strange to me. Postman brings up an essay by John Locke talking about how “the body must become a slave to the mind” and notes that one of her students can only read if her body is in a some what strange position. I find myself to be a horrible reader, but I have never found myself unable to read unless I doing so in an exact posture. So long as the way I am sitting isn't distracting me then I am able to read just as well in any physical position. It seems that the idea that Postman was trying to convey was that ones physical state is connected with the way one reads. This is shown more when Paglia agrees with Postman's idea and explains how she noticed a connection between successful dancers and unsuccessful readers. This may simply be because I haven't had as much experience with as large of a number of dancers as Paglia, but every one of my personal friends that are dancers have been very interested in books and read far more proficiently than myself. I can understand the idea that if someone spends time trying to become better at one activity then will become less proficient with the activities they are forgoing. However it has always seemed to me that most people that are physically good in the arts, such as dance, usually enjoy reading as an art form as well. It almost seems like Postman and Paglia are taking being a reader and being athletic to the extremes, and referring to people people who never read and are constantly physically active and vice versa. Though I would wager that even the most intense Olympic athletes still pick up a book every so often.
Another topic the two discussed that I entirely disagree with is when they both agreed that when people watch TV they don't learn or retain any information. As I said before, I don't read very much at all, in fact I almost never read books unless it's for a class, and I don't think I have ever read more than one or two articles in a news paper. Almost all of the news I hear about is from the TV and many of the historical facts I know I learned from either the History Channel or from movies about a time period. But by the logic of Postman and Paglia I should know very little more than the information I was taught in school, which to me is somewhat insulting. I will say that I don't know nearly as much about Greco-Roman transitions influencing Judeo-Christian beliefs or about pegan ideals and teachings as the two of them. However this is probably because the History Channel hasn't done a special about it yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think you did a good job in relating what you acquired from the readings to yourself. The point you made about Postman believing that when people watch TV they don't learn or retain any information is also kind of true because by observing individuals in today's day and age such as yourself who do not read books and only gain information of their sorroundings and events of the past through CNN/ History channel, shows otherwise.
I think you could have included Postmans and Paglia's main views in the begining. Postman's view being that he believes reading to be an ordered process requiring us to sit at a table, consume ideas from left to right, and make judgments of truth and falsehood. He says, by its nature, reading teaches us to reason and television, with its random, unconnected images works against this linear tradition and breaks the habits of logic and thinking. Paglia on the other hand says, by juxtaposing such jarring images, TV is creating a picture of the world that is simply true to life. She says nature can crack the earth open and swallow thousands, and then the sun shines and the birds sing in TV as nature, all have equal weight.
I stated the authors views in my blog, then supported it with facts on why they were either right or wrong and why i believed so.
Also different from your blog, i felt that Neil Postman won me over with his points made in the conversation with Camille Paglia. Reading is!!!! an ordered process requiring us to sit at a table, consume ideas from left to right, and make judgments of truth and falsehood. By its nature, reading teaches us to reason. And that television, with its random, unconnected images does work against this linear tradition and breaks the habits of logic and thinking.
Your blog is very truthful to you and I like how you described how you dont like to read. I agree that television has taught me alot and i dont think that people can only learn if they read a book.
You make some pretty good points in this entry. It doesn't make much sense to me either when Paglia argues that basically more athletically inclined individuals will be less literate than those who read. Although her example fits, I agree with you in thinking how it just doesn't fit to assume those who are active don't read and vice versa. Aside from the examples, you probably should've included more of their exact stances in this argument in a very general sense to give the reader a good summary of their views before diving into the examples. You do very well in adding personal input, and I agree with you that television does teach the watcher something, though it should be noted that knowledge gained from watching television and knowledge gained from reading are two different ways of acquiring knowledge, so their values differ.
Post a Comment