Monday, July 30, 2007

Amusing Ourselves to Death Analysis

Before I read Amusing Ourselves to Death I really had no clue as to what Neil Postman’s argument would be about. I tried looking at the cover but I was pretty sure his argument didn't consist of men and women with a television as a head. As I began reading the first couple of chapters I understood what was going on but I could find no argument. Finally things progressed once I entered part two. This is where Postman captivated me with his argument. His use of rhetorical devices helped me to understand what his arguments were and where they came from.

To begin, the thing I noticed most about how Postman wrote this was his habit in quoting many other famous philosophers and people of wisdom. He quoted numerous people such as Frye, McLuhan, Twain, Orwell, Huxley, and Plato. It seems that he uses these educated men of wisdom in making his entire argument even more accurate. They are his references, and when he wants to put extreme emphasis on one point, he brings up a quote made by an old historian of some sort from years ago. This form of writing at first seemed a little sketchy to me but in the end it made me believe every word he said.


When it comes to rhetorical devices, I believe Postman used an overwhelming amount of Logos. Logos, being the appeal to reason is almost self explanatory. His entire argument is based on logic whether it is about the evolution from an oral culture to a print culture, or how everything is based off of entertainment. Ethos, in my opinion is practically non-existent. Although his argument is persuasive, he provides no evidence that he has been well educated on the subjects at hand.


The purpose overall in this book, was completely unveiled in the last chapter. He wrote this book showing you his argument and backs it up with information and quotes but the reader doesn’t really know what to do with this information until the very end. It is in the last chapter where he provides his ideas in stopping the madness of entertaining ourselves to death. His purpose was to inform all audiences willing to read this book and attempt to give suggestions as to how to prevent what he has predicted.


Although written in 1985, it seems to me that Postman predicted accurately of what was happening in his generation, and what was to happen in the next generations to come. His writing and ideas completely changed the way I think of television and the media. It has inspired me to spend one day a month without any form of a television, computer, iPod, or cell phone. As was his intention, he opened my mind to how much the media controls me. In all honesty it scared me.

3 comments:

Hattie said...

I thought what you said about his first few chapters was correct. It seemed as though he had no arguement. When I first recognized that he had an arguement was in the "Now this..." chapter.(Chapter 7).

Kyla said...

Your voice comes through your paper, especially in the first paragraph when you describe your first impression of the book. I laughed when I read it, because it sounds just like you!

Dan Shepler said...

Yeah, you were right about the fact that he didn't have an argument at first. I think he was using it to describe how the mediums have switched from a typographic epistemology to a more television based epistemology. Your explanation of logos was brilliantly worded, on a level with that of a true genius. And skipping to the end, I must say that I agree with you in how scary it is that are lives are almost completely controlled by media.
However, instead of meekly accepting the fact that are lives seem to be controlled by media, as the end of your essay suggests (since you don't have anything to say otherwise), I believe that we should do something about it. Although I'm hesitant to suggest an electronic fast, at the moment it's all I can think of.