Digital Bingeing

Summary:

Abha Dawesar, starts the talk concerning the effects of the "Digital now" ,as she calls it, on how we experience time and the moments of our daily lives. The main argument delivered is that the Digital Now distracts us from realizing that time is not just data bombarding us, but rather that it is an experience in which one must be aware and appreciate the moment, through love and attention. The speaker starts the talk by recalling the time when she was cut off from power when hurricane sandy struck, and she specifically mentions how people considered charging their phone as essential, just like food and shelter. Later on Dawesar speaks of the philosophy of what the Digital Now actually does, in which she remarked that it causes the warping of both space and time, the far is now close and what would take an eternity to naturally occur takes a matter of seconds; due to internet archives the past lies before us as well as the present, and suggestions of the past based on other peoples past choices, become our potential future. We become distracted as a result of the "creativity" of technology nowadays. To prove her point she remarked how her grandfather spoke of Vienna and the Spanish riding school as well as the world's capitals, and then she stated that it is possible to learn this today from  Apps, but the experience she shares with her grandfather is something the Digital Now can never take away, since she experienced this, she realized what was happening at that moment was not just a bunch of data stored in the form of memory. Dawesar shares more personal examples such as learning how to cook from her grandmother, and learning that time is needed to nurture such skill, and thus showing the difference between Time and the Digital Now, which she mentioned previously are now confused as being the same. She concludes with stating that it is we who have the ability to slow down the flow of time and thus we can choose to have time back and experience the moments we want to cherish.

Analysis:

Purpose:

Abha Dawesar's purpose is to inform the world about the effects and dangers of the Digital Now that is reducing the realization of moments that we have and is distracting us. her goal was also to persuade the viewers to try to enjoy the world through experience with others, and to cherish the moments that we are in; she also wants us to realize that every moment in time can never be quantified and only exists in that exact same moment and thus we can only experience things truly once, we need to view the world as a once in a life time opportunity that must be made the best of without the distractions of technology.

Ethos:

The author is a novelist who graduated from Harvard University and has written countless books concerning the philosophy of understanding nature, time, self, and uncertainty. Although her background doesn't suggest any expertise in the field of philosophy and the analysis of how technology affects us today, the fact that she is an experienced writer of her personalized understanding of the purpose and effects of nature and self, makes her credible for the sake of experience. The fact that she went to Harvard from a developing country demonstrates her academic and intellectual achievements, however when she speaks concerning her topic her ethos isn't the most imposing aspect that persuades or influences the listener, but it is rather her logos and sometimes her ethos that play such a role.

Logos:

Whilst analyzing Dawesar's speech it is evident that the supporting evidence she uses mainly comes from purely logically concerned assumptions, and claims. The way she supports those claims is by either assuming the audience experienced a situation that can be related to her argument, and thus argued without any need of intervention, or by using her own personal examples, which are used to show what the reliance on the Digital Now truly deprives a person of. The author rarely  addresses any counter claims of the other side of the spectrum to validate her argument and thus she doesn't give fair mention of any critique concerning her opinion. This sense of bias doesn't take away from the message, but adds a sense of incompleteness, since one would like to hear the other side of the argument. The structuring of the presentation is coherent and efficient as it firstly states a claim, then she shows the logic behind such a claim, and then give personal, real life examples that further her argument’s points. Overall the argument was strong concerning the addressing of her claims, and relatable examples, but it is weak by a potential bias, and the lack of any counterclaims.

Pathos:

The author Utilized emotions of fear and Paranoia in a very discreet fashion in the beginning of the speech as she stated that the Digital Now has become a distraction that has eclipsed all aspects of life and is in direct competition with time, and is constantly ahead of time. This feeling created anticipation in the audience, but later on this was ameliorated,  since such feelings of helplessness gave way to Dawesar’s experiences with her Grandfather and Grandmother which were filled with fondness; She stated that such experiences can slow the flow of time and allow the appreciation of the moment , and that love is nourished in the presence of such an environment. Dawesar, also discreetly, tried to show the audience the supposed previous stupidity that most people possessed when they thought that having the Digital Now would bring everything to them whilst assuming that all had a phone and access to Internet. All of these feelings are effectively utilized by Dawesar to make her solutions more appealing and to make her problem seem more drastic, as a result the end result would be one out of desperation and the seeking of pleasure, which are one of the most strongest of human desires.

Why I chose this:

To be blatant, I took a gamble and clicked on a random link since it had the word digital in it. However i'm glad I chose to watch and analyze this, since I personally love the digital world and all the wonders of Internet. Internet is how I live, it is also how I sleep ( I pass out while Netflix binging every day, and then repeat the episode I fell asleep on the next day since I wake up having no recollection of it); another reason why this was interesting was because it reinitiated my philosophical mind once again and gave me inspiration to challenge Dawesar's claims in the recesses of my mind where no mortal shall ever hear of it, thus making mankind dumb concerning my sophisticated opinion ( opinion=fact) of this topic. To be honest I had already thought about most of what Dawesar said, but I was interested in her reasoning of time being more than a collection of data, and how she viewed an experienced moment as a treasure which nurtures the love of those around us. I personally don't like that mushy feeling stuff but, many people who are softies will give in to this stuff and believe it and since most of the world is made of softies then it will make sense to think of this speech as world changing. The reasoning behind this is that more people would spend time experiencing moments and not staying on their phones, and thus the world market would collapse without the Digital Now; so the ultimate choice is between that of bliss and sorrow, or depression and wealth, most obvious choice.

Link to Video:

https://www.ted.com/talks/abha_dawesar_life_in_the_digital_now

To Love is to Sacrifice and to......... know what comes next you better read this blog

#3 Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.

In order to answer this question in the most effective manner possible, the definition of "Love" and "Pity" must be made clear. Love ,as defined by Omar-the-wise, is " a decision making factor that, if not known to be existent by the person it inhabits, can sometimes transgress the boundaries of reason and thus produce an action, as well as a result, that was not carefully decided by the subject". Now if the subject, who has a form of love, knows the existence of his/her love and for what that love is directed to, then one can regulate when love can affect decision making, if one thinks carefully about the decision; yet, if one were to be faced with an uncontrollable situation where time is of the essence, then love, as well as other emotions, might prevail over one's reasoning. This can yield both good and bad results, as the action performed is unknown by the subject until the specific decision making time passes. Love can be both selfless and selfish and unconditional as well as conditional. Due to these various forms, love can involve people , physical inanimate objects, or pretty much any concept. This love and it's fast decision making can involve sacrifices since it puts one's reasoning and the benefits of such reasoning aside, thus love can cause sacrifices for loved ones, which puts one in a state of possible vulnerability, this being selflessness. One can also love himself/herself and thus reinforcing one's various reasonings and defense mechanisms, this being Selfishness.

Pity possesses a much simpler definition. " Pity is when an individual shows a form of empathy to another where, this can be due to an unfavorable tragedy striking the pitied person or that person is lacking in some ability that the observer either possesses, or that specific ability is required for the success in the situation the pitied person is in."

Now since the definitions are clear, How can one apply them to Double Indemnity and the claim that there is no Pity or Love in the film?

Using the definitions of love outlined above one can say that Phyllis Dietrichson possessed a form of unconditional selfish love for herself throughout most of the movie; first when she allegedly killed Lola's mother so that she can marry Mr.Dietrichson, who according to his last name is Rich, and is also dead. This selfish love for herself and monetary gain affected her reasoning since if she wanted Mr.Dietrichson dead then she would have left Lola an orphan and killed a man for shiny metal (money). Phyllis' love for herself also extends to the point where she would use her sexual appeal and her body to acquire what she desired. Thus if the love used in the question can be extended to selfishness, then, By all means both Phyllis and Walter Neff are driven greatly by love. Walter's love unlike Phyllis' wavers much more often, firstly from being against killing Mr.Dietrichson, and thus showing no love to such an idea, to falling madly in love with Phyllis' and killing a man just to satisfy her. His love for Phyllis can be described as conditional and selfless, which is supported by the fact that he committed murder and prospectively theft, just to be with her; however, after realizing her Phyllis’ nature from Lola and from Phyllis' interaction with Nino , Lola's former boyfriend, his love shifted from Phyllis to the point where he confronted her and suggested killing her, which he eventually does.Phyllis although never possessing love towards Walter does , rather surprisingly, not kill Walter after wounding him with a shot to the shoulder, and says that this was the only minute that she really loved him, so she didn't shoot him, if the definition of love here is speaking of selfless love then at that moment this would have been the only example of love, although unrequited, since Walter shoots her in cold blood, and portrays no love whatsoever.

In terms of pity, one can say in some instances that when  Jackson offered his aid to Walter, who pretended to have a broken leg, and asked him if he wanted to smoke, Jackson showed some pity on Walter since he thought that a man who has a leg injury might find it both difficult and inconvenient to go and find an item in another cart, thus fulfilling the requirement for the definition of pity. When walter picked Lola up from the side of the street in order for her to go with her boyfriend, Walter showed her some pity since she was naive of the ways world and was in need of travelling assistance. Although such an action can also seem to fit in the love category, it doesn't fulfill the decision making portion of love, since Walter was not overly drawn to help her, but it was rather a gesture of common courtesy. A final example of pity can be seen when Walter convinces Nino to go for Lola, and not enter the house, where walter had killed Phyllis, since according to walter, Lola was the one that truly loved Nino. This fits the category of pity since Walter could have perceived Nino to be, too young and too naive to be involved in such a murder case.

Overall depending on the certain type of love meant by the question, it could be argued there is love in the movie Double Indemnity of many kinds, yet with no love being found at the end of the movie, as shown by Walter’s killing of Phyllis. There is however without a doubt some extent of pity, which is true regardless of the different definitions of pity, in which most cases are shown to those who are naive, such as Lola and Nino.    

Works Cited :

Double Indemnity. Dir. Billy Wilder. Perf. Edward G. Robinson. MCA Home Video, 1991. DVD