This is because people only focus on their short-term satisfaction. They pay very little attention to how things will work out for them in the long run and only care about their current state of happiness. However, in fact, there are still many major problems that exist. Only in a time where society is becoming evidently corrupted, does anyone even consider these problems. This concept is shown in the novel, because the times of turmoil result in a serious change in Montag’s mind.
even if it means standing alone. They may not get people to listen but at least they have each other for a little while. They want to silence and kill Clarisse because she is a free thinker and doesn’t want to conform with society. She believes in reading books, whats in the books, and spreading the word to people about how great this information is. Shes not like the other kids she doesn’t like watching tv she likes hanging out with Montag who is much older then her.
With Friends Like These written by Tom Hodgkinson talks about the effect that Facebook has on the consumer. Throughout his writing Hodgkinson is very much against the use of the internet because it is an imaginary world that interconnects everyone without much effort than the use of a keyboard and mouse, everything only being a click away. He also continues to emphasize that there isn’t much effort being put into communicating and networking with others in person, putting us on the verge of losing that skill. Throughout his writing the author uses a serious tone that can come across as very negative as he speaks out against not only Facebook, but other big name companies such as Paypal, Coca-Cola and Blockbuster. The use of a descriptive example such as, “A friend of mine recently told me that he spent a Saturday night at home alone on Facebook, drinking at his desk.
The firefighters burn books because the government does not allow people to read whatever they desire. The government fears that through reading the citizens will become too knowledgeable causing them to question their authority, which will lead to the government being over thrown. The actual books are not what the government is afraid of, but the information they provide. They fear that information will cause the people to think they have the power to disagree with the laws and regulations of their society. For example, the firefighters do not know the history of the past purpose of the firefighters.
While Carr’s arguments lead to the viable point that technology is now so deeply riveted into the fabric of our lives that we have lost control over its influence on us, he is not the first to be concerned. According to Carr, Socrates thought very little of the advancement of writing due to the fact that it would force society to forfeit the use of their memory because of the abundance of written material that would then be available. He also believed that people would, without receiving knowledge from credible sources, rely alone on their own interpretation of information and in turn become ignorant. Carr sees Socrates’ way of thinking as “short-sighted,” even though his argument in relationship to the internet mirrors that of Socrates’. Google has “[served] to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge” today in the same way that the development of writing expanded the mind of an individual in the first century (Carr 8).
In all these countries, where people are oppressing or trying to oppress people, education isn’t a priority. Books and education aren’t so readily available and it makes me think if that is on purpose or just a weird coincidence. What better way to make people weak by taking away free thought and an environment where their minds can nurture and grow? I finish this paper with this thought in my head and feeling
Carr said that “ People who are continually distracted by emails, alerts and other messages understand less than who are able to concentrate.” (qtd line 9). I agree with that the net slowly damages our brains. For example, my friend who spends a lot of time to do nothing important things on the internet, can’t deeply focus on one thing. When we together read a book, she can’t focus her mind only in the book. She gets easily bored and tries to do something different thing when she reads books.
Even though the American Library Association bans books that parents complain about, it is an act that demeans civil rights and contains numerous disadvantages. A few reasons that I believe outlawing books is unruly is because I believe that banning a piece of literature would not stop people from reading it, authors spend extensive hours creating their story for readers to enjoy, and citizens should have access to the press and the opportunity to read any book of their choosing without opposition. One of the significant reasons why terminating the banning of books would beneficial is because I believe that banning a book would not stop people from reading it. Despite the fact that some books are vulgar and show a different view of society, banning the book in its entirety does not create the effect that the American Library Association believes. Instead, parents should know that banning a book as a matter of fact, promotes its popularity as banned books even have their own special week every year where readers are encourage to read banned books.
But Kozol makes some big important points why being illiterate can hurt the person in all parts of life. Kozol states that, “They cannot read traffic signs and, while they often learn to recognize and decipher symbols, they cannot manage street names which they haven't seen before” (Kozol, 4), this is like being trapped inside your own world. If someone cannot read something simple as a stop sign they just have no life to be living. What good are they to the society if a person cannot read? Everything these days counts on mostly technology, being able to understand and read technology is a huge part of today’s society.
When students are allowed to work together, they get less done because most of their time is spent talking with friends. However, laziness isn’t the only reason that people shouldn’t govern themselves. People are ignorant. Plato favored a republic because only the wisest could rule. He believed that people were ignorant and shouldn’t be allowed to rule themselves.