Is Adam and Eve's sin is misunderstood? Maybe just a taste from the tree of knowledge isn't enough. Is it possible that they just didn't eat enough fruit?
Jenny's post about the popularity of a political candidate brings up some very interesting thoughts. The voting public places such an emphasis on a president's charisma, looks, and social skills.
We are look for someone who we feel will represent the country well, who will make good decisions, and who will improve our conditions in both the domestic and international realm.
We must then ask: how do we form our opinion? Jenny sparks if the idea of a wave of opinion spreading. Maybe we like someone or some product because it’s popular and our friend gave us a good reason. Some are "well-educated" by the news stations.
Does the media portray the candidates in a certain light, emphasizing misconceptions? Are our views of people skewed because we follow popular consensus? -JennyAskari
This brings one to the idea of how we label information received by certain mediums as truth. For those that are interested in what's happening in the world around us and in current events we turn to news stations, the radio, and newspapers.
We are aware that the news channels cut and censor information to tell a story. I wonder: if the news is skewed and we will never get a complete story then who can we turn to for some truth. The newspaper? Journalists are the same. What then?
Is there any ‘truth’ anymore?
As long as there is a story to tell or a product to sell (and often those go hand in hand) there will be a bias. That doesn't mean watching the news or reading the paper should be set aside necessarily due to the idea that we will never get pure information. Thus, why Michael Moore and other documentarists are often called ‘info-tainment.’ It is a product being sold and a business and therefore the angle and story will be molded to ‘sell’ an idea, an image, or an opinion. Maybe, however, we should try to hear the same story from other sources. If they all take parts of a story, shouldn't we then be able to at least put together a more complete story than we would have with one biased source?
2 comments:
I appreciate how you've reworked this post, but it is still lacking an analytical focus, and several sentences seem to be completely out of context.
Your title asks "Where Do We Get Our Information?" It seems to me that this question risks being too broad: well, we get our information from a *lot* of places, from numerous so-called 'sources'. Yes, we need to weed through all this information, and yes we should be aware of biases and perspectives; but does the concept of 'truth' (or a "complete story") really help us navigate this terrain? I'm not sure what you are advocating in your post: a need for clarity and 'truth'? Or the reality of a murky informational swamp? Are we to take Adam and Eve's knowledge consumption seriously, or be suspicious of even this 'story'?
While you seem to be trying to articulate a lot of complex issues and questions, your post still feels choppy and in need of careful rewording.
I completely agree with you that the many sources of information we get, we cannot simply say if they are in fact true. I previously posted a similar idea about truth (What if History is Made Believe), and in it, I expressed similar views. However, since we cannot really say for sure if the information we get is true or false, all we can really do is try to get it from as many sources as we can and piece together the event to see if it makes sense. Or we can just simply believe what we are told. We all have a choice as to what we believe or not believe in. But I guess as long as it makes sense, then we can learn to accept it. We do not have to believe it, but we can simply accept it and then move on. That way, it will make our lives a little more easier. Or you can reject the things that you are told, and then try to seek the truth. But this may take a long time, so therefore, I have learn to accept many things, at least only when I'm too busy to seek the truth.
Post a Comment