Does google make us dumber? This is an interesting question because it seems like an easy answer. How can google make us dumber if it is giving us information and knowledge that we may not be able to find or access in other places? However, if we compare finding information from google to how people used to find information it seems that it could be hindering individuals intellectuality more than helping. Google is a great place to get quick information; where we can look up a quick fact or even just check the weather. On the other hand, we can do deep research, find great sources and explore new ideas. I do believer that google opens the door to new perspective and ideas. It may show someone something that they didn’t think of in the first place.For example, google takes each individual word searched and finds websites that contain those same keywords. This is an interesting way of searching because it broadens the search. Instead of looking for the specific answer to our question, we are linked to information and each and every aspect of the question. I do not think that google is making us dumber, that is something I’ll say now and in a few days I could change my mind but for right now I do not think I have enough support to show that it is making us dumber. I see google as a resource and a tool. Rather than the sole place to look it is an addition place to look for information. Yes, some people only use google and this makes those individuals used to using shortcuts rather than going through information thoroughly. This approach may only make the person less knowledgeable but not dumber. I like to see the glass half full. Rather than google making people dumber, I would like to say that using google only makes people more knowledgeable if using it correctly. If one does not use it correctly than they are not gaining all the knowledge that they can – it is not hindering their knowledge in anyway though.
Before going to the Uffizi Gallery, I would have never thought that I would have loved it as much as I had. I’ve never considered myself to be an artistic person and I’ve never had a real understanding of the way art communicates with us. After seeing the sculptures and pantings in the art gallery and after hearing all that Isabelle, our tour guide, had to say about the pieces, I have a new appreciation for art.
Just like documents these pieces of art are pieces of history that tell us so much more then words can. We get to see the beauty, feel the emotions, capture the various colors and see the depth that the picture holds. Isabelle and her explanations allowed me to look deeper into the painting and see its true meaning. There were many pieces that made me feel something, either compassion or a calm feeling. Bottticelli’s Primavera must have been my favorite painting. From the moment I saw it I was captured in the moment and felt a sense of comfort wash over me.
Like Isabelle touched on, the transparency in the clothing and the way Spring is shown coming to life, made the painting feel so real. I am so grateful that I had this opportunity to see all that is in the Uffizi Gallery and gain a better perspective in what art of the modern renaissance was meant to portray. All the sights and art in Florence put me in awe of the beauty and meaning that come from this creative expression.
It was really interesting to reflect on culture today in class. I wonder how America so quickly jumped to such a technologically advanced and fast paced country. It seems that in the United States we have everything imaginable. I walk into a store and I have endless options for anything I need. For example, when our whole class was plagued with food poisoning we walked into a pharmacy and struggled to find anything that would help our stomachs. We finally found a medicine similar to Tums but it seemed to be the one type of stomach medicine in the whole store. This, of course, is just my own experience in Rome so far. I recently watched a documentary on Minimalism. It basically explained that the more you have, the more you have to take care of and the more you have to worry about. I see in American culture that we have so much – so many options and more than we need. For example, my mom goes into Wal-Mart and cant decide what toilet paper to get, what cereal the kids like, what paper towel brand has the best deals; this all creates a strain on her shopping experiences and ultimately stressed her out – the long lines, people and crowded isles only elevate this stress. It seems that in America, everything is so fast paced because there is so much to do and that is because we have too many options. From my experience, a day in Rome is waking up, smiling at a familiar face, walking where you need to go (no worries of car troubles), drinking a simple but delicious coffee at a normal café (rather than Starbucks messing up your, venti grande frappe mocha fancy drink) and heading off to do what is only necessary to be done for that day – the rest can be enjoyed. In America we seem to be overwhelmed with the choices and how to make the most use out of them all, instead of finding the upmost joy in simpler things.
When asked the relationship between truth and argument I began to think, for an argument to be effective does it have to be true? At first, I would have said that for an argument to be made it has to be backed up by truthful facts – to give the argument credibility. Credibility is usually crucial for an argument to be accepted. However, after some class discussion, my viewpoint changed. From my communication classes, I have learned that persuasion and rhetoric are only as persuasive as the audience is receptive. If one wants to persuade someone they have to frame their argument so that it appeals to the audiences emotions, needs and goals. A speaker or writer could present the exact same information to the same audience, in the same setting, but, only some will be persuaded and others will have unchanged opinions – they may not be interested, they may be set in their ways or they may be so programmed to follow their own truth.
With that being said, one must use rhetoric, and find the right appeals in order to be persuasive, however, I do not think that these arguments have to be truthful. For example, in class we talked about truthful knowledge vs. public opinion. There could be scientific evidence to support an argument but if someone believes that it is not real than there may not be any convincing them otherwise – even if the scientific evidence is presented – they will either chose to avoid listening to the evidence (to avoid contradicting their beliefs), or they will not see it as convincing because they are too firm in their belief system. With this being said, I do not think that an argument needs truth to be successful, I believe that the argument needs the correct rhetoric and appeals to the needs of the audience to be effective.