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

Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is an essay evaluating the internet’s effect on cognition. His main argument of the text is that the Internet might have harmful effects on cognition, thus weakening ability for concentration and reflective thought. Carr begins the text by reflecting on his lack of attention span that is rapidly increasing as he begins to rely on the internet more and more for resources. He claims we want are information in a “here and now,” type of manner. Therefore, internet users are becoming lazing, by letting the computer do all the work for us, we rarely even think for ourselves anymore. We seek convenience and quick answers; rarely do we actually think through and digest texts anymore. Another key argument of Carr’s is that “we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of technologies.” Thus we become reliant upon them and allow them to shape the way we think; therefore, they essentially control the way we operate, instead of them adapting to us, we adapt to them. For example, when the mechanical clock came into common use, we stopped using our senses and started obeying the clock. No longer did we base our day and act on instinct but we started to rely on time. The clock now decides when we eat, work, sleep, and rise. Is the internet manipulating our thoughts, and controlling the way we operate as well? To conclude, Carr places his skepticism in a historical setting, reflecting upon how previous critics of technological advances have proved themselves correct.  Skepticisms such as Socrates' concerns about written language and Hieronimo Squarciafico's concerns about printed works were unsuccessful to foretell the welfares these advancements might add to human knowledge.

Carr posed a very convincing and in my opinion accurate argument for the effects Google, or the internet in general is having on our society, and the minds of individuals in it. He explains how our cognition is negatively affected. Our attention spans have dramatically decreased, we are less patient, and lazy when it comes to analyzing, reading, and digesting text. I definitely agree with these strong arguments, even in my own life since I have started using and in result, depending on the internet more and more for my information I am becoming less patient and even perhaps lazy. Although Google is in fact, a good thing, and without a doubt a very efficient and useful way to get information, is it making humans any less intellectual? And since technology is advancing every day, will the raw human mind be affected even more negatively?

Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself"

In Walt Whitman’s poem “Song of Myself,” he begins staring at a blade of grass. He explains how much he loves the world, in particularly nature, and how everything fits together harmoniously. He feels that nothing is bad that doesn't add to some larger good. Nature contains patterns in it that fit like a well-built house. He divides his personality into three parts: The "I' that involves itself in everyday things, the "Me Myself" that is apart from the “I” and enjoys the world, and the “soul,” that represents his most personal being. Whitman strongly believes people should not learn from books, or teacher, but they should go into the world and learn from raw experience itself. A young child asks him what grass is, and he has no answer, this makes him think particularly about those who existed on earth before him and are now buried in the ground. He connects with each individual and everything in the world, even those no longer alive. Whitman believes that truth can be found everywhere, and that all people are equal. He especially believes in the invisible connection and understandings between all people. For their own benefit, people should have faith in the order of nature, and accept it, including death. He concludes the poem saying that he will return his body to nature and continue on life’s voyage and until then he will wait for us to catch up with him.

Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” is very much pro-nature and humanity. In it, Whitman expresses his love for nature and humankind. He emphasizes his love for the natural order in creation, and feels everyone would be better off if we just accepted the order it brings, and connection we share with one another. A point he very much stresses, is the fact that people should not learn from teachers and books, but they should venture into the world and learn from the truth and experience that is everywhere. I would definitely agree with him to a point. I believe that people should not only limit themselves to classroom style learning because that can in many cases just be useless learning that only benefits from others ideas, and nothing of from your own mind. Therefore, how can your mind branch out and really grow if you do not give it the opportunity? If we really want to know and learn truth, we should go out and learn from the most solid truth accessible to us on this earth, which lies in nature. 

Walt Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry"

In Whitman’s “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry,” the speaker is a man on a ferry between Manhattan and Brooklyn. He peers over the ferry ledge to look at the water below and as he sees the clouds and sun reflected in the water and addresses them as “you.” The speaker also looks among the business and work people on the ferry saying they look “curious,” he then ponders the people who will in the future make the same trip across the river as them. The speaker then begins to feel connected to a sort of system larger then himself as he is bewildered at the act that the other future people crossing the river will see the same sunsets and tides. The speaker expresses that time and place cannot separate people and to the people of the future he says “I am with you.” He then gives examples of common experiences people all share such as being in a large crowd of standing against the rail of a ship. It is very apparent that the speaker now feels very close to his readers of the future as he says, "What's a couple hundred years between friends?" He begins to describe events of his life, as though we too are a part of it. He then however, begins to pour out his heart about all the evil sins he has committed, such as lying. Despite all these things though, he points out that he is just a typical man and he associates life to that of a theater. Going along with this theory he says how he could be watching us even as we are listening to him. He then goes to extremes and explains how nothing not even the "Gods," could be as great as the sight he has from the ferry. He says that we can only know the soul through all the things that make up the physical world, they wait for us to perceive them in the right way and we have ignored it, but we won’t anymore.

Walt Whitman’s “Crossing the Brooklyn Ferry,“ is very analytical of the connection that men have between each other, the connection between men and nature, and the connection between nature and the spiritual world. I would agree with the argument he poses regarding human’s relation with other humans. It is very true that within nature we can all share the same experiences, because it is unchanging and cannot be altered by men. Therefore, our ancestors can come back to it even a hundred years later to see, and experience the exact same things. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Experience"

In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay “Experience” he considers, among other things, the death of his young son Waldo. Emerson writes in rather opinion or helplessness, “I grieve that grief can teach me nothing,” he laments, perhaps insisting there is nothing to learn from this devastating loss. Emerson goes on, leaning toward between acknowledgement and assertion, and creating along the way a number of key points. In “Experience” he defines “spirit” as “matter reduced to an extreme thinness.” He describes “human life” as consisting of “two elements, power and form, and the proportion must be invariably kept.” A major claim made by Emerson is “The years teach us much which the days never know,” this is an argument for the idea that experience cannot be condensed to or thought of by only the smallest events, then added back up again to establish a life. Therefore, there is a complex whole present in a life and at work through us. Another statement Emerson makes is that nature in itself is beautiful, it also holds patterns, and when people discover the patterns and begin seeing them, it loses its beauty. Despite the melancholy tone throughout Emerson’s essay he also shows optimism, a faith in human events and his sense that divinity radiates through all being. Every day,” he writes, and “every act betrays the ill-concealed deity.”

Emerson’s “Experience,” is at times despairing in its tone, particularly while he goes on about the death of his son. However, I believe some points he makes are quite valid. For example, when he says “The years teach us much which the days never know.” I would agree with this claim, a person cannot be defined by simply short days. However, days upon days added up give us experiences and ultimately teach us something, whether it is about ourselves or nature, years give us knowledge that short days cannot quite compare with. However, this claim does raise a question. Does this mean short days cannot teach us anything? For that I would disagree. For any day can hold great importance and lessons. I feel as though Emerson might not think so because he is still grieving the loss of his son and is quick to say that he will learn nothing from this grief. However, he must re-analyze this, because although that may be the case, often people learn the most from tragedy. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Nature”

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay “Nature” is the foundation of transcendentalism. It puts forth, a belief system that promotes a non-traditional appreciation of nature. This essay says that Transcendentalism suggests that we can only understand reality through studying nature. Nature is an experience of desolation. Emerson says that when one desires to be alone, they can look at the stars because the stars promote a feeling of respect; for they linger unreachable.  All matters in nature demand such an attitude of wisdom, joy and ease. Emerson also insists on the importance of this link between man and nature.  This power of happiness is not due only to nature, but to man as well, therefore the harmony between the two. He claims that in fact, because of our exchange with nature, we become a big part of God. Finally, Emerson expresses that we have to use the pleasure of nature in measure because "Nature always wears the colors of the spirit".

Emerson’s take on nature is very humble, and appreciative. He expresses his gratitude for the wisdom, power, joy, and ease we find in it, along with the respect we generally approach and take with us from nature. In many ways I would agree with Emerson in his take and claim on nature. I would say it definitely gives men a certain peace that no other matter can. The harmony that humans get from our in sync relationship with it is so divine I would agree that part of us is one with nature. However I would disagree with his claim saying that we become a part of God. I believe that God created nature and is superior over it, not one with nature. Although we are made in the image of God, and we are nature God is outside of nature and far greater.