Delention
Dec 26, 2012
Undergraduate / Potential Differences; LMU Supp/ Reality and recreating [3]
Would like some critique on this, please! I'm confident in my writing, but horrible in editing and making it better. Applying to the college, and I would really like to get in! I'm not sure if it's original or not; I merely wrote what I thought. Regardless, thank you for the feedback.
"To Fr. Nicolas, imagination requires going to the depths of reality and recreating (re-imagining) it. Do social media and instant communication pose obstacles to such reflection and serious thinking? How can college students practice serious reflection in our always connected and instantaneous world?"
POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES
Much of the controversy and widespread denunciation of today's technology and its ubiquity seems to have focused towards the idea that it, quite frankly, discourages thought. I do not mean to say that all thought ceases; one must think about what to post and the response it will provoke. I mean real, serious and deep thought; one does not find people discussing their place in the world, or what love means to them and others, or the difference between what people want from life, and what they need. These questions are of a deeper nature because they are serious and difficult questions that put us and our lives under a painful scrutiny. And if one takes a look at any massively popular social networking website, one would find that no one asks such questions. There are exceptions, there always is, but such discussion rarely ever materializes because people view social media and instant communication as a means for social behavior, not as a way to think critically and perform introspection. Instant communication makes contact with friends and family incredibly simple; the technology is naturally suited for such. Having fun and meeting new, interesting people is easily facilitated with websites such as Facebook. That does not make it a bad thing, but the result is an emphasis on "superficial" thought, not serious, personal reflection.
But there is an important distinction between what something is meant to do and what it can do. One would think the two are one and the same, but there is a difference. An important difference, because these technologies, this new presence of social media and instant communication that seems to have reduced, even destroyed, all serious intellectual thought and reflection, are but merely tools. And all tools have this distinction because everything depends on their use; they are a means to an end, and while they may have one, intended purpose, they may have over a thousand equally effective uses. A gun can be used as a way to hurt people, or as a way to protect them. A book can merely entertain its readers, or show them something about the world that changes them as people. And some tools have no defined us. The internet itself, the entity that has given people access to online computer games, instant messaging and social networking, is also what offers those with access more information than anyone in the entire world has ever had access to in the past, in the blink of an eye. Not even whole libraries can compare to the information that is stored on the World Wide Web, and the potential in using that information is enormous. So this is not a question of whether or not today's global communication technologies "discourage such deep reflection and engagement with the real" as Fr. Adolfo Nicolas stated; this is a question of how and why people use these technologies. Social media and instant communication do not inherently cause this behavior. They are but tools. And just as they serve to discourage serious thought, they can also serve to propel it further than what was previously possible.
Why cannot serious reflection and deep thought exist in a world that is always connected and instantaneous? Perhaps such thought requires much time and effort to develop, but if so, why should social media and instant communication hinder such activities? Simply because a response can be instantaneous does not mean it has to be; there is nothing forcing people to respond immediately when instant messaging. It depends on how people use it. Fr. Adolfo Nicolas fears that these technologies foster a "globalization of superficiality," and to a degree, I agree; the way the technology functions certainly makes it very useful for such use. But that is only one way of using the technology; one form, one possibility. I do not think that a world that is always connected and practically instantaneous is an obstacle to serious and deep thought and reflection. Rather, I would venture to say this new technology allows people the opportunity to practice such thought in even better ways than before.
To regard the technology as an obstacle to serious thought is to deny its benefits alongside its flaw; its potential is lost when it is considered a problem, when it does not have to be. Communication technologies allow individuals to contact each other from across the globe, at incredible speeds. Entire conversations can be made from any corner of the world: China to the U.S., Mexico to Spain, Britain to Africa. The limit of time and place has all but been eliminated. And the annihilation of that barrier has facilitated, more than anything, the free flow of ideas. Thoughts are no longer limited to geological barriers; where oceans, mountains and time divided people and cultures, they are now mere factors to the new innovations. And ideas are the birth and children of all thought; new ideas stimulate us to consider and evaluate our own thoughts and beliefs, and whether we decide to accept those or reject them, we inevitably create new ideas or strengthen old ones. Perhaps this technology does discourage serious thought and reflection. But it can also do the direct opposite; promote serious thought and reflection through the perspectives it links. That is only one possibility for the technology among hundreds. It all depends on how these tools are used. How we, as individuals, choose to use them.
Would like some critique on this, please! I'm confident in my writing, but horrible in editing and making it better. Applying to the college, and I would really like to get in! I'm not sure if it's original or not; I merely wrote what I thought. Regardless, thank you for the feedback.
"To Fr. Nicolas, imagination requires going to the depths of reality and recreating (re-imagining) it. Do social media and instant communication pose obstacles to such reflection and serious thinking? How can college students practice serious reflection in our always connected and instantaneous world?"
POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES
Much of the controversy and widespread denunciation of today's technology and its ubiquity seems to have focused towards the idea that it, quite frankly, discourages thought. I do not mean to say that all thought ceases; one must think about what to post and the response it will provoke. I mean real, serious and deep thought; one does not find people discussing their place in the world, or what love means to them and others, or the difference between what people want from life, and what they need. These questions are of a deeper nature because they are serious and difficult questions that put us and our lives under a painful scrutiny. And if one takes a look at any massively popular social networking website, one would find that no one asks such questions. There are exceptions, there always is, but such discussion rarely ever materializes because people view social media and instant communication as a means for social behavior, not as a way to think critically and perform introspection. Instant communication makes contact with friends and family incredibly simple; the technology is naturally suited for such. Having fun and meeting new, interesting people is easily facilitated with websites such as Facebook. That does not make it a bad thing, but the result is an emphasis on "superficial" thought, not serious, personal reflection.
But there is an important distinction between what something is meant to do and what it can do. One would think the two are one and the same, but there is a difference. An important difference, because these technologies, this new presence of social media and instant communication that seems to have reduced, even destroyed, all serious intellectual thought and reflection, are but merely tools. And all tools have this distinction because everything depends on their use; they are a means to an end, and while they may have one, intended purpose, they may have over a thousand equally effective uses. A gun can be used as a way to hurt people, or as a way to protect them. A book can merely entertain its readers, or show them something about the world that changes them as people. And some tools have no defined us. The internet itself, the entity that has given people access to online computer games, instant messaging and social networking, is also what offers those with access more information than anyone in the entire world has ever had access to in the past, in the blink of an eye. Not even whole libraries can compare to the information that is stored on the World Wide Web, and the potential in using that information is enormous. So this is not a question of whether or not today's global communication technologies "discourage such deep reflection and engagement with the real" as Fr. Adolfo Nicolas stated; this is a question of how and why people use these technologies. Social media and instant communication do not inherently cause this behavior. They are but tools. And just as they serve to discourage serious thought, they can also serve to propel it further than what was previously possible.
Why cannot serious reflection and deep thought exist in a world that is always connected and instantaneous? Perhaps such thought requires much time and effort to develop, but if so, why should social media and instant communication hinder such activities? Simply because a response can be instantaneous does not mean it has to be; there is nothing forcing people to respond immediately when instant messaging. It depends on how people use it. Fr. Adolfo Nicolas fears that these technologies foster a "globalization of superficiality," and to a degree, I agree; the way the technology functions certainly makes it very useful for such use. But that is only one way of using the technology; one form, one possibility. I do not think that a world that is always connected and practically instantaneous is an obstacle to serious and deep thought and reflection. Rather, I would venture to say this new technology allows people the opportunity to practice such thought in even better ways than before.
To regard the technology as an obstacle to serious thought is to deny its benefits alongside its flaw; its potential is lost when it is considered a problem, when it does not have to be. Communication technologies allow individuals to contact each other from across the globe, at incredible speeds. Entire conversations can be made from any corner of the world: China to the U.S., Mexico to Spain, Britain to Africa. The limit of time and place has all but been eliminated. And the annihilation of that barrier has facilitated, more than anything, the free flow of ideas. Thoughts are no longer limited to geological barriers; where oceans, mountains and time divided people and cultures, they are now mere factors to the new innovations. And ideas are the birth and children of all thought; new ideas stimulate us to consider and evaluate our own thoughts and beliefs, and whether we decide to accept those or reject them, we inevitably create new ideas or strengthen old ones. Perhaps this technology does discourage serious thought and reflection. But it can also do the direct opposite; promote serious thought and reflection through the perspectives it links. That is only one possibility for the technology among hundreds. It all depends on how these tools are used. How we, as individuals, choose to use them.