I do not think the
author’s ideas are helpful for day-to-day life. I believe this because he argues
with an Ivy League professor’s idea. His tone in his writing makes me feel that
he feels superior over anyone else’s ideas and that’s not acceptable because
anyone can counter argument his opinion. I do agree with the Ivy League
professor’s idea that if we look at were we are (for instance we live in in
Texas) and then look at the earth from space, then look at the Milky Way, and
what is beyond that; we do feel like a speck in the world. Feeling small in a
world that is far bigger than ourselves, gives us the idea that there are other
problems surrounding us than just our own issues. I feel like this idea is more
helpful for day-to-day life rather than thinking that we need to think twice
about us as being superior than everything around us. I don’t see how his
article could help someone daily. I don’t see any true advice given other than
that he believes chimpanzee’s knowledge came from humans. To counter argue
that, I thought we evolved from monkeys, resulting in our brains and knowledge come
from them. In addition to, we have modified our brains over a very long period
of time to become the smartest mammals, or things, on this planet.
His
ideas could be similar to the video we watched about the brain. This author,
Tyson, says “the universe is in us,” which is similar to the videos Nirvana.
Taylor claims that she felt her “spirit soared free, like a great whale gliding
through the sea of silent euphoria.” This is very similar to Tyson’s “we are
one with the rest of nature, fitting neither above or below, but within.” This
explains that we live on this world, on earth, and that whatever we do to it
affects it one way or another. For example, littering. We may not see the
affect instantly, but over time, we see an increase in pollution and filth
surrounding us, harming animals, bacteria, and ourselves.
I agree with you about the moment in the essay where he argues with the professors idea, that his tone in the writing he seems to feel superior to the professor. However, I feel like Tyson didn’t mean to sound superior on purpose. I feel like that maybe he thinks that the professor is just not viewing the shows and the depictions of our universe in a bigger scope. If we really stop and philosophy, what exactly Tyson was saying (which isn’t simple at all), we can see that seeing ourselves as a speck is a step to becoming something much bigger. He talks about how with the absence of curiosity we can’t expand ourselves as people. That with the absence of curiosity, that our predecessors would be cave dwellers hunting with sticks and rocks, instead of farmers. In other words, humanity or society would be way behind than where we are today. I feel as if the authors ideas could be interpreted a little better that maybe this could be helpful for day-to-day life. Like when Tyson said “ we are one with the rest of nature ..” ,and how your example of littering and how it affects nature, kind of proves and shows that maybe his ideas could be helpful in a way.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are some instances where I can see your point, and even agree with you. I disagree with the argument that the author’s ideas are not useful in everyday life because “he argues with an ivy league professor’s idea.” I feel that saying Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s argument should be considered wrong simply because someone else who teaches at a well-known college says it is, isn’t a good enough reason. If this were enough to say some one was wrong, then ivy league professors would oversee everything. However, this argument almost proves a point Tyson is trying to make. Tyson states that ego is “inflated by delusions of significance and fed by cultural assumptions” and that is exactly what has happened here. The argument is being made that due to a “cultural assumption” that ivy league professors are smarter than other people his idea is more valuable than Tyson’s, and that is exactly why I think Tyson’s argument is so valuable in everyday life. Through “cosmic perspective” we could all see ourselves as one equally valuable cog in the multiverse and be open to listening to each other’s ideas with no preconceived judgments based on titles and positions that in the end will be worth nothing. If we all worked harder to view life in this cosmic perspective everyone’s ideas would be equally valued and respected no matter the position of the individual sharing them.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your point about the essay not being useful in daily life. I believe everyone needs to read this essay and will hopefully grasp onto the idea and jump off of their high horse. Tyson's tone is very direct and slightly abrasive but I think that is needed for the ego-filled audience the essay is directed to. (You gotta admit we can be pretty full of ourselves.) Tyson actually seemed pretty understanding to both perspectives and even relates the professor’s current way of thinking to his own former way “In all fairness to the fellow, powerful forces in society leave most of us susceptible. As was I…until…” I agree with you and the professor that looking into the universe makes us feel small, but I also agree with Tyson when he says it’s very liberating. When we compare all of the Earth to the rest of the universe: every caste, every hierarchy, and all sense of superiority is erased. We are all shown for what we truly are- human. We are inhabitants of the Earth and we all play an equal part. I agree with you when you say that the essay relates well to the video. I would make the comparison of the professor having a left-sided mentality and Tyson having a right-sided mentality because while the professor addresses individual importance in relation to the universe, Tyson advocates the connection with all the energies surrounding us.
ReplyDeleteI like your comparison of Jill Bolte Taylor’s TED talk to Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s essay as they both talked about being one with the world and there not being a hierarchy but a part of the universe. I also agree with your point about when we realize that we are all a part of this big universe and stop thinking of ourselves as superior, we can help each other now and in the future. Thinking of how big the universe is and how small we are humbles us and our problems in our day to day lives.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree that the authors ideas aren’t helpful because Tyson points out that people think that the world revolves around them and their ways/beliefs are the only way. When we look at the universe and see that it does not revolve around us and there could possibly be a species superior to us it softens our egos. The author also points out that there is not a huge gap between humans and chimpanzees genetically but we still think that we are superior, when is reality we are all just a part of nature. Through Tyson’s cosmic perspective we can think of ourselves as a part of the universe no more and no less.
I disagree with your argument against Tyson's essay because I think his overall idea about "the cosmic perspective" is a good way to look at life. When I read this essay, I felt that he really wanted the emphasize the presence of the ego we have as human beings, and how this ego is causing problems on Earth. Keeping an open mind about the science behind our universe and life itself can help us realize that as humans we are all the same, and in order to preserve the quality of our lives we need to work as a team. Reading this essay made me realize how insignificant our problems with each other as humans are. If only we could all work together as a team, we would be able to keep "the cosmic perspective" alive and take care of "the only home we have". There's only so much we know about the unimaginable size of the universe, and in order to keep an open mind about exploration and discovery, we need to take care of ourselves and set aside the petty little differences we have with one another that hold no significance in our place in the universe. I understand why you didn't agree with his argument against the Ive League professor, but I just interpreted it differently. I didn't assume Tyson was trying to place himself above everyone else; I viewed his argument as more of a compliment of our species as a whole. The professor used a man made presentation of the cosmos as a way to make viewers feel small and insignificant, yet the presentation was created based on the discoveries made by the human brain itself.
ReplyDelete