Here is a link to the essay we read for week nine, I think it is. Maybe ten? Anyway Here. It is called "Our Celebrities, Ourselves.
I thought this essay was super well-written and thus, almost entertaining. But at the same time, it's boring. I find that a lot, especially on the internet and in magazines: little articles or essays or whatever are very, very well-written, but they're still just so many words on nothing. On one hand, I'm tempted to say "What's the point?" because, well, that's what I say to EVERYTHING. But, on the otherhand, I guess sometimes these boring non-articles are simply super articulate versions of our own thoughts so I can almost see the appeal. I mean, they're just kind of wandering and pointless, just like our thoughts, and explore... exploratory? Is that a word? Can I make it one?
But just how very articulate and well-worded they can be can really be the appeal. I wish I could make my pointless thoughts that clear.
Or do I?
Why I am not a Christian or Why I Am Not a Christian
Sunday, December 5, 2010
This is an essay by a guy named Russel. And for some reason, it bored me to death. My classmates all commented about how he used humor to keep it from being too inflamatory (omg, where is spell check!) but apparently I was too bored by it to even notice. I don't know. I just felt like it was somehow super dry and dull.
Intially, I was really interested and dare I say even excited to read it because I myself am not a Christian and it's so rare to have people admit that and... like... talk about it that, you know, it caught my attention.
And certainly he made some good (haha. I just typed 'god' like four times in a row trying to correct my initial misspelling. Is it a sign?) points and he must have done a pretty good job since, judging by the discussion board, none of the Christians in the class were super pissed or annoyed by it. They didn't even say it was stupid or silly.
But it's not something you can really rationalize out. So what is the point? I guess his title makes it better. It implies that the purpose of the essay is just to defend himself and explain why he is not a Christian. It doesn't say why Christianity doesn't make sense to me or why you shouldn't be a Christian, he just centers it on himself.
But still. It's just not something that lends itself to rational thinking.
It reminds me of a story I heard about that awful, terrible Peter Popoff guy. So he was basically completely torn apart and exposed as a fraud and I think even legally punished in some way or another, yet he continues to sell faith-healing holy water or something on tv.
Anyway, so this one time these people (who were not into the faith healing thing and were more into the debunking thing) were just kind of talking with and interviewing people who had been 'healed' during one of his 'performances'. He did his typical "oh you're healed. I'm going to break your wheel chair now" type of thing and the woman walked. These guys had noticed that the woman had walked a bit to get in and out of her car and to move around in the aisles here and there. Though she was primarily using a wheel chair, she could walk if needed. So when Peter Popoff says "Walk now, you're healed" she gets up out of her wheelchair and takes a few steps and calls in a miracle. So the interviewers were like "Well, couldn't you kind of walk before?" and she said "Well, yeah, I suppose so." and they continued kind of asking her a few more questions which pointed out that maybe he wasn't so magical afterwards. She admited that it was all true and good points but then at the end she claimed "But I still believe!"
I mean, when you're dealing with blind faith like that, what's the point in using logic. It's just kind of silly.
Intially, I was really interested and dare I say even excited to read it because I myself am not a Christian and it's so rare to have people admit that and... like... talk about it that, you know, it caught my attention.
And certainly he made some good (haha. I just typed 'god' like four times in a row trying to correct my initial misspelling. Is it a sign?) points and he must have done a pretty good job since, judging by the discussion board, none of the Christians in the class were super pissed or annoyed by it. They didn't even say it was stupid or silly.
But it's not something you can really rationalize out. So what is the point? I guess his title makes it better. It implies that the purpose of the essay is just to defend himself and explain why he is not a Christian. It doesn't say why Christianity doesn't make sense to me or why you shouldn't be a Christian, he just centers it on himself.
But still. It's just not something that lends itself to rational thinking.
It reminds me of a story I heard about that awful, terrible Peter Popoff guy. So he was basically completely torn apart and exposed as a fraud and I think even legally punished in some way or another, yet he continues to sell faith-healing holy water or something on tv.
Anyway, so this one time these people (who were not into the faith healing thing and were more into the debunking thing) were just kind of talking with and interviewing people who had been 'healed' during one of his 'performances'. He did his typical "oh you're healed. I'm going to break your wheel chair now" type of thing and the woman walked. These guys had noticed that the woman had walked a bit to get in and out of her car and to move around in the aisles here and there. Though she was primarily using a wheel chair, she could walk if needed. So when Peter Popoff says "Walk now, you're healed" she gets up out of her wheelchair and takes a few steps and calls in a miracle. So the interviewers were like "Well, couldn't you kind of walk before?" and she said "Well, yeah, I suppose so." and they continued kind of asking her a few more questions which pointed out that maybe he wasn't so magical afterwards. She admited that it was all true and good points but then at the end she claimed "But I still believe!"
I mean, when you're dealing with blind faith like that, what's the point in using logic. It's just kind of silly.
Regarding Technology and How We Think
Friday, December 3, 2010
I never know if you're supposed to capitalized two letter words in a title. I usually don't, but sometimes I do. I'm not sure what my thought process is. I think the rarer the word is (for titles,) the more likely I am to capitilize it. Like I never capitalize words like "to" or "in" but for some reason I paused for a moment and ultimately capitilized "we" above. Isn't the state of grammar education in this country disgusting? I remember constantly being embarrassed in my Russian class because my Russian teacher knew far, far more about grammar (and the English language in general) than any of us native speaker, college students did. Totally nuts.
I'm pretty sure two letter words aren't supposed to be capitalized, but whatever. I'll leave it. I'll call it a stylistic choice. Artists can pull that crap all the time. It's great.
Anyway, this post isn't really about grammar. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It's about the internet and computers and how the effect education because that is kind of sort of what Turkle's essay entitled "How Computers Change the Way We Think" is about. Whoa! In the PDF, 'We' is capitalized!
Anyway, I am very interested in the ways computers change how we think. However, I know very little about that. I did read one study type thing once where it was mentioned how multitasking is basically destroying our ability to think, and that was semi-related technology and computers, but I don't really remember much of the study itself other than it made me want to quit multi-tasking so much. I did try for like three days, but I couldn't handle it. I HAVE to have like six browser tabs oopen at once. I just do.
Anyway, what I do know a bit about is how computers have changed education. I mean, look at this. I'm 'blogging' for extra credit. I'm taking a class online. I've never even seen my instructor or any of my classmates, at least not that I know of.
And have you noticed any spelling errors in this post? That's because I am borrowing my friend's laptop and she uses internet explorer (eww) which apparently doesn't include a built-in spell check. I hardly even ever learned how to spell because I've just always relied on spell check to do the spelling for me. It's wonderful and terrible!
And do you know what else? It would probably take me about 8 seconds to learn whether or not words like "We" or "Me" should be capitalized in titles. I just have to type it into the Google search. Look. I'll go do it right now just to prove my point. If my computer had a seconds timer readily available, I would even time myself. But I"m too lazy to do that.
Ok. Results. Well, it took a few more than 8 seconds, only because the 'rules' regarding capitalization in titles are annoyingly complicated, not because the technology let me down. Basically, there is no consensus. I hate the English language. Could you imagine trying to learn it from another language? "Oh, well you do this and this. Always. Well, except half of the time. And only when this happens." The rules are such... non rules. It's really frustrating.
Anyway, I lost interest in learning about that. It's too annoying and complicated and inconsistant and really, it hardly even matters. Who cares, as long as it looks like.
Anyway, this was a fun little experiment in learning with the help of Google!
I'm pretty sure two letter words aren't supposed to be capitalized, but whatever. I'll leave it. I'll call it a stylistic choice. Artists can pull that crap all the time. It's great.
Anyway, this post isn't really about grammar. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It's about the internet and computers and how the effect education because that is kind of sort of what Turkle's essay entitled "How Computers Change the Way We Think" is about. Whoa! In the PDF, 'We' is capitalized!
Anyway, I am very interested in the ways computers change how we think. However, I know very little about that. I did read one study type thing once where it was mentioned how multitasking is basically destroying our ability to think, and that was semi-related technology and computers, but I don't really remember much of the study itself other than it made me want to quit multi-tasking so much. I did try for like three days, but I couldn't handle it. I HAVE to have like six browser tabs oopen at once. I just do.
Anyway, what I do know a bit about is how computers have changed education. I mean, look at this. I'm 'blogging' for extra credit. I'm taking a class online. I've never even seen my instructor or any of my classmates, at least not that I know of.
And have you noticed any spelling errors in this post? That's because I am borrowing my friend's laptop and she uses internet explorer (eww) which apparently doesn't include a built-in spell check. I hardly even ever learned how to spell because I've just always relied on spell check to do the spelling for me. It's wonderful and terrible!
And do you know what else? It would probably take me about 8 seconds to learn whether or not words like "We" or "Me" should be capitalized in titles. I just have to type it into the Google search. Look. I'll go do it right now just to prove my point. If my computer had a seconds timer readily available, I would even time myself. But I"m too lazy to do that.
Ok. Results. Well, it took a few more than 8 seconds, only because the 'rules' regarding capitalization in titles are annoyingly complicated, not because the technology let me down. Basically, there is no consensus. I hate the English language. Could you imagine trying to learn it from another language? "Oh, well you do this and this. Always. Well, except half of the time. And only when this happens." The rules are such... non rules. It's really frustrating.
Anyway, I lost interest in learning about that. It's too annoying and complicated and inconsistant and really, it hardly even matters. Who cares, as long as it looks like.
Anyway, this was a fun little experiment in learning with the help of Google!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)