You Passed High School? Great, now leave.

            Schools today focus on preparing students for their future, as well as teaching students that the minimum is acceptable.

            Neil Postman in his book, The End of Education, states different narratives schools take on for a reason to teach students.  One of the narratives Postman stated as outdated, the Economic Utility narrative, I believe is still in effect.  The Economic Utility purpose tells students that, “if you pay attention in school, and do your homework, and score well on tests, and behave yourself, you will be rewarded with a well-paying job when you are done” (Postman 27).  Public education is training students to pass high school, go onto college, and eventually get a career.  This practice is definitely apparent in our school environment, in which we have advisory every week whose sole purpose is to prepare us for getting into college and what to do afterwards.  With education shaped around this principle, schools are creating a future-minded and career-set public.  A public such as this one can be beneficial and/or detrimental to society.  On one hand, students are closer to figuring out what they want to do in the future and how to contribute, while on the other hand, students might not be learning or paying any attention to other subjects which will limit their education. 

            Also, public schools, especially in Florida, are now lowering their standards for standardized tests to pass grade levels and to graduate from school.  Students have recently been performing very badly on the annual FCAT, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.  So, “In order to make sure that students succeeded on the test, the passing grade was lowered” (washingtonpost.com).  When public education is dumbed down such as this, it creates a public that believes the minimum is okay and that you don’t need to try as hard in order to succeed.  Society will be affected very badly if educators allow this to keep happening. 

            Schools in the twenty-first century create a public that has a large focus on students passing high school where the minimum is acceptable, and go onto college in which they prepare for a job in the future.

Works Cited

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

Strauss, Valerie. "Test Scores Plummet — so Florida Drops Passing Grade." Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 21 May 2012. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Epicurus vs. Postman.... Who Will Win?

           The Epicureans would have had a blast in the 21^st century.  In the novel, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, we are brought through a course of philosophy, covering all the major philosophers of all time.  Epicurus were one of them.  Throughout Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, he states how television is degrading our society and how all serious forms of discussion have turned into entertainment.  So, who were the Epicureans? What did Postman believe about entertainment, and why would the Epicureans and Postman disagree?

            Epicurus founded a school in Athens for philosophy around 300 B.C.  He was influenced by Aristippus who, “believed that the aim of life was to attain the highest possible sensory enjoyment,” (Gaarder 131).  Epicurus’s followers were called Epicureans and they followed a certain belief in how to live life to the fullest.  Epicureans emphasized that every action a person does should be for the purpose of pleasure, even if the outcome will not be advantageous.  As the philosophy practice progressed, the followers, “developed an overemphasis on self-indulgence.  Their motto was ‘Live for the moment!’” (Gaarder 133).  As we can all relate, many people in the 21^st century do things for the satisfaction of doing them, instead of learning and doing the best things for themselves.

            Neil Postman on the other hand believes entertainment and over-indulged pleasure in the modern world is dangerous for society.  The culture of television, “offers viewers a variety of subject matter, requires minimal skills to comprehend it, and is largely aimed at emotional gratification,” (Postman 86).  Postman takes on the more logical point of view in how our entertainment-based culture, based on ‘emotional gratification’, is making people less logical and unable to discuss clearly.

            In a debate between Epicurus and Postman, both sides would get very heated.  Epicurus had a faith in pleasure and that the best thing someone can do is receive satisfaction.  Postman would retort with how this pleasure would bring society down a notch in its ability to think clearly, learn, and be rational.  The Epicureans later believed to live in the moment.  Postman discusses this point and how it is present in today’s news.  News segments only last for a few moments, then go onto the next topic.  Whereas the Epicureans believed this living for the moment was beneficial, Postman believes it does not provoke thought and cannot be taken seriously. 

            So, do you agree with Epicurus that we should live for pleasure and satisfaction, or with Postman that too much pleasure is detrimental?

Works Cited

Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994. Print.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1985. Print.

9/11 Discussion

            September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center was attacked by a radical group of terrorists, al-Qaeda.  George W. Bush, the president at the time of the attack, gave a speech nine days after the event.  His use of language and diction contributes to the speech’s effect on the population and heightens his promise to Americans.  Ten years after the attack, Noam Chomsky wrote an essay contradicting Bush’s actions and condemning the United States to “American exceptionalism” which is very much accurate.

            George W. Bush uses rhetoric after the attack of 9/11 through his descriptive words and tone of voice.  In the beginning of his speech, Bush uses ‘we’ to address the American population instead of talking directly from his point of view.  His use of this pronoun institutes a feeling of inclusiveness and unity between the American people which contributes to his uplifting and reassuring tone.  The encouraging tone follows in, “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.  Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done,” (Bush 1).  I have found that uplifting attitudes towards events spur more support than violent and accusing tones.  I believe Bush begins and finishes with a reassuring attitude to get the support of the population and make everyone feel safe and secure.  Bush uses normal diction, along with regular vocabulary in order to address as many people as possible in the United States.  His speech also includes many anaphoras to give it a strong and powerful message.  Later on in his speech, Bush includes many facts about the terrorists involved in the attack to inform citizens and to make it known that the United States will stop them.  Bush’s promise to Americans is that, “every terrorist group of global reach will be found, stopped, and defeated,” (Bush 4).  He supports his promise through his answering of common questions about what to do and what al-Qaeda is about.  Bush is very stern and commanding towards the terrorist regimes by using harsh language which help his reassuring attitude towards America that we will not be attacked again.  All of these aspects of Bush’s speech contribute to his reassuring and later commanding tone and attitude to support his promise to Americans.

            Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, has a very different point of view than Bush and is critical of the United States and its actions during the years following 9/11.  The United States is built on democracy and freedoms.  These are the main practices we promote and use throughout history and in the present.  However, Chomsky makes a point on how our country is at times a hypocrite and follows “American exceptionalism.”  Made clear by Bush, the United States will attack any government or country that supports terrorism or harbors terrorists.  However, Florida allowed Orlando Bosch, an international terrorist, to live in the state, supported by the first George Bush who pardoned Bosch from any punishments.  According to George W. Bush, “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists,” should be revoked (Chomsky).  Florida remained unscathed even though it violated the rule of not harboring terrorists.  Similarly, the assassination of Osama bin Laden violated international law by not allowing the terrorist a fair trial (a right the United States supports greatly).  If the circumstances are in American favor, like killing bin Laden, our country will not follow law and do whatever it takes to accomplish our goal. Finally, the United States committed the, “supreme international crime—the crime of aggression,” (Chomsky).  Due to Bush invading Iraq with armed forces, America violated law and began a war because it was in America’s best interest to do so.  The United States takes part and exploits “American exceptionalism” because it allows us to accomplish our goals, even though we don’t abide by our own values. 

Bush, George W. “President George W. Bush’s Address to Congress and the Nation of Terrorism”. 20 Sep. 2001. Address.

Chomsky, Noam. Was There an Alternative? Huffington Post, 6 Sep. 2011. Web. 10 Sep. 2015.