This weeks discussion involved a debate regarding the Carr novel entitled “The Shallows,” which argues the overplayed trope that the internet and technology has severely impacted the intellectual quality and capacity of the modern generations. Is he right? Yes! Technology has entirely altered the process of linear thought, damaged our attention spans, and caused the academic of an inability to think for yourself, due to instant access to libraries of knowledge via smart phones and laptops. While many choose to harp on the failure of newer generations due to their dependence on technology, it seems the obvious benefits of this accessibility are ignored. Our society now has the ability to produce educated and well rounded individuals. Instead of focusing on one specialization, students of the modern era are able to learn anything they desire, essentially for free. Anyone can walk into a public library and use the provided computers, or if one so desires, pick up a book which would not be available without modern technology either! What good is memorization if you can’t apply this knowledge or share it?

It was argued that literacy has been the downfall of civilizations, and stated that preliterate cultures where superior. These cultures had the ability to argue, memorize and recite information. The scholars of this time period also were only able to effectively share their information and discoveries through record keeping, which takes us back to literacy. Additionally, most did not believe in any kind of human rights and believed the world was flat. The internalization of knowledge with the assistance of technology has allowed it to be dispersed, creating accessibility to the masses, without discrimination of gender, age, race, or economic class. Does this allow authors to “own” us? Not necessarily but it does allow them to own our intellect, especially since one is legally required to cite them within a paper or presentation. This may be a downside, but once again it allows the masses to be informed in various subjects, rather than what they can discover individually.

The next question that was posed was whether or not history belongs to us. In museums artifacts are preserved in a way that visitors can only view them from behind glass, creating the idea that history is a set of fixed and static moments and that only sacred figures can make change. One could argue that history belongs to no one, since regardless of the narrative there is always an inherit bias, so the truth can not be found. Every version of historical events has been altered and glorified, for example the story of Pocahontas or even just the process of American Westward expansion. The Native American narrative has been completely erased and overshadowed by the glory of America, looming over like how Mount Rushmore’s placement in native lands serves as a constant reminder of the genocide of their ancestors. In American history books, the pioneers are depicted as brave individuals enduring rough terrain and conditions in search of new lands, but the onslaught that followed is frequently forgotten. Do these textbook writers own our perception of history by spreading this false narrative across the country?

The following class was categorized as “philosophy day” as we discussed idealism versus realism. The two are distinguished by seeking or believing in an ideal (typically created by God) and by not believing in an ideal. Realists are not guided by an ideal but are influenced by the play of similarity and difference. It was interesting to see how the class was split, particularly when describing the posed question: why do we like looking at a sunset? As a realist my answer is that regardless of the contents of the day, whether it was wonderful or chaotic, it comes to an end the same way. Also it is just beautiful. Initially I was confused by the concept, conflicted which identity I ascribed to, but I slowly realized that throughout the entirety of my existence I have weighed possibilities, items, meals, and everything else against one another, based on my own personal standard rather than an ideal. I also took several quizzes to solidify my hypothesis, which all confirmed that I am a realist.