Men used to court women for weeks and months at a time before asking her out on a date. Nowadays, people can swipe right across your screen on Tinder and the app will match a couple up. With technology advancing as fast as it has in the past several decades, things are bound to change.  These days, you can order pizza, listen to music, chat with your friend, read a book, and even go shopping without getting out of bed. Technology has completely changed the way we live our lives compared to how it was decades ago. In Ian Bogost’s “Don’t Hate the Phone Call, Hate the Phone,” he talks specifically about how the phones and phone calls have changed since landlines were popular.

Bogost begins by explaining that Millennials not only have a distaste for phone calls, some actually have a kind of telephoniphobia. With chat apps like iMessage, WhatsApp, and texting, interacting with people have changed to less personal means of communication. Bogost states, “When asked, people with a distaste for phone calls argue that they are presumptuous and intrusive, especially given alternative methods of contact that don’t make unbidden demands for someone’s undivided attention.” I agree with what people stated in regards to phone calls. The way technology has shaped the way we interact, leaves phone-to-ear conversations obsolete. We use our cell phones in our everyday lives. We spend most of our daily lives on the go and we use our cell phones whenever we have a small break, whether it is ordering coffee, riding the train, or while running errands. An incoming phone call can be intrusive or presumptuous if you’re in the middle of a meeting or in class. As technology advances, the way we do things become easier and quicker but we have also become busier because we are able to tend to more obligations leaving us little time to spend talking over the phone and directing us towards texting.

Cell phones nowadays are designed in a way where it isn’t easy to talk live on the cellphone as compared to landlines in the 20th century. Bogost mentions, “On the infrastructural level, mobile phones operate on cellular networks, which route calls between between transceivers distributed across a service area. These networks are wireless, obviously, which means that signal strength, traffic, and interference can make calls difficult or impossible.” Cellular networks are unreliable, calls get dropped, the audio is subpar, and with signal loss as well, telephoning through a cell phone is untrustworthy and unpredictable, therefore, unlikely to initiate a phone call.

The Western Electric model 500 was a popular phone in the 20th century. The phone was designed to conform to the ergonomics of listening and speaking. It had a solid feel yet not too heavy to hold it for long periods of time. There were many ways to hold it, whether you grasp it at its center, cradle at the rounded mouthpiece, or wedged between the ear and shoulder. It was a tool made for the sole purpose of telephoning. As technology advanced, the phone’s shape begin to change and shrink until it is a flat rectangular piece we’re used to today. The tiny microphones and speakers are designed to be hidden inside the piece making sound difficult to be projected in and out of the device. Bogost finally states, “Telephone calls haven’t declined because we have become anxious or lazy. They’ve fallen out of favor because using the telephone feels mechanically ungainly as much as socially so.” I wholeheartedly agree with this. Cell phones are typically used for almost everything but phoning. Its whole design is made to make phone calls less convenient. The device is constructed to do more than that, it is designed to match the era we live in; it is designed to match our fast paced, efficient, and bustling lives.

Telephoning is a means to interact with another person on a more intimate level than texting or using a chat app. The telephone or landline was invented as a tool to communicate with another person, just as a cell phone is. Many people complain, with technology now, texting and chat apps have driven us to be more cold and distant in comparison to calling someone but ultimately, we forget that though calling may be more personable, it does not replace face-to-face interaction. These tools, both landlines and cellphones were created to make socializing and interacting quicker but both at a cost of losing intimacy. Before the invention of these devices, we would rendezvous with a friend for lunch to talk about each other’s’ lives. Technology has replaced this in the 20th century with landlines, and now with cell phones. It’s not the phone call we should hate, or the phone. Technology isn’t the true culprit of making us less intimate, it’s a lack of effort in each person to make it more personal. It’s the lack of time we make to fit another person into our busy, bustling lives.

I do not call people. Ever. Anyone I need to reach can be contacted via text, or in some cases email, and when it comes to takeout, GrubHub is a life saver. Until reading this article, I largely placed my fear of speaking on the phone on my social anxiety, but that of course does not make much sense when calling my grandmother, who in no way should trigger that. Now that I have read Ian Bogost’s article “Don’t Hate the Phone Call, Hate the Phone”, my fears of speaking on the phone, which I can now classify as “telephoniphobia,” have a very reasonable explanation.

Bogost starts his argument by first explaining the reason why we hate the call. When asked why people hate phone calls, the answer is that they are “presumptuous and intrusive, especially given alternative methods of contact that don’t make unbidden demands for someone’s undivided attention,” and this is true. When it comes to emails or texts, one can take as long as they feel necessary to reply, or even ignore it all together. Like Bogost also mentions, texts and emails also let people craft their ideas when responding rather than saying what comes to their minds first, which is what happens in most “live” conversations. He then goes on to explain that these reasons are not the only ones that make us shy away from picking up the phone.

He goes onto explain how cellular networks, and the lack of reliability of them, add to our stress of calls. The “cellular infrastructure has conditioned us to think of phone calls as fundamentally unpredictable affairs.” The cutting in and out of voices when trying to carry out a conversation is very annoying, and can easily be avoided by texting. On top of this, if you are able to have a phone call with great connection, you will most likely be struggling to hear one another do to the fact of all the background noises of the street you are walking down or the coffee shop you are in, but the background noise may not even be the real problem. Bogost argues that the fact we can talk to one another on our cellphones anywhere we want is, at the core, the reason that phone calls are not the marvelous thing they used to be.

Because of our new, small, made perfectly for the pocket cell phones, the “Western Electric model 500” no longer dominates our phone call experience. In Bogost’s argument, this phone model is the signifier for a sort of “ideal” phone. Not only is it the symbol in which we still connect to phones, but it also holds a much deeper meaning. The phone’s design “maximized the telephone’s ability to contain and direct speech while limiting noise pollution and increasing privacy.” On top of that, Bogost argued that there was some sort of intimacy connected to the phone, not only through the way it felt, but also in the action of the phone call it was used for. He finishes the article by saying “That icon on your phone app isn’t just an icon for a function, it turns out. It’s also an icon for a complex of feelings and sensations, all of which once added up to the tingly-anticipation of connecting your body to someone else’s through a molded plastic housing over a copper wire.” This statement, written with a little too much admiration for a phone, does stir up some feelings of sadness that this experience has been taken away from modern times, but I do not think our modern cell phones have taken away the ability to “connect” with people through our cellular devices.

iMessage and FaceTime are both ways of communication that most of the younger generations cling to, and while texting may be a stretch in terms of intimate connection, FaceTime, I feel, can be equivalent to the “connection” phone calls used to have. Getting to see the face of the person you are talking to is an amazing way to feel close to them, and because of the need for wifi and/or data to use this video chatting app, most of the time people are FaceTiming in a more private setting. I do not think just because the beloved landline is gone that so is connection over calls. While this article is a great one in explaining why most people no longer like to make phone calls, I also feel as though it is just another “shaming millennials for their generation’s advancements,” or “millennials are killing phone calls” type of article.

   Barthes essay “The Eiffel Tower” seems to focus on his fixation with the famous monument that we associate with Paris, France. He’s perplexed by its uniqueness of the ability to spot it wherever you are. It teeters on the duality of being seen by everyone and it seeing everything, rendering it a complete verb. It is this all encompassing monolith that reflects how visitors and natives alike attach their dream like visions to the tower. They only see themselves and their own subjective fantasy.  It has a passive yet active role which allows unseen things to still exist. But most of all, he becomes irritated so much by its presence, aesthetics, and social connotation attached to it that the only way he’s able to escape it is to eat by it everyday. He uses the Eiffel Tower as an example of familial goods are able to enmesh themselves in the lives of the consumers within an economy. He argues that the tower was useless even in the beginning of it’s construction, claiming that it served no rational or practical purpose. Barthes identifies the tower as a signifier that only had meaning when men grant it to have such meaning. The signifieds being “the symbol of Paris, of modernity, of communication, of science or of the nineteenth century, rocket, stem, derrick, phallus, lightning rod, or insect” (4). This list could technically go on because we are granting it meaning from our own subjective imagination and experiences. Barthes explains how even the creator/architect of the tower had constructed a list of uses for his tower such as “aerodynamic measurements, studies of the resistance, of substances, physiology of the climber, radio electric research, problem with telecommunication, meteorological observations, etc” (6). Barthes deem these expectations for the tower’s use to be just as ridiculous because they can never be compared “to the great imaginary function which enables men to be strictly human” (6). As a signifier it serves a purpose of its function being futile. But on a mystical level, in order for the tower to have significance as a signifier it must escape reality completely and not abide by its expectations.

   The dream like seduction of the tower is comparable to the discourse of advertising in which we willingly sold on the illogical in order to allow. It’s comparable to the empty brands such as coca cola or disney that are meaningless until we thrust significance onto them in order to display our personality through signs of commodities, brands, and goods. Once we make our identities apparent in these brands, we must display ownership which would give the commodities functions within our social realm. So really, the Eiffel tower technically isn’t useless right? It’s just being hidden by all the socioeconomic faces we’ve attached to it. Just like Coca Cola, the Eiffel Tower offers a sort of identity that is able to take subjective form. Could this be what Barthes talks about when it is a “great imaginary function which enables men to be human”? We have to create metaphors and icons around things and give significance to them in order to be human? Is that why companies like coca cola and disney have a family oriented/communal appeal? To have a sense of familiarity in a constructed fantasy created by companies to us, the consumers?

   Aesthetically, Barthes claims that the tower was supposed to be perceived as this “rational, useful” structure but men come back to it “in the form of a great baroque dream” (6). This is contrasted by his description of the sun tower which opposes the tower aesthetically with the use of “utilitarian” steele and of masonry. Details such as a bonfire and elaborate mirrors illuminate the top of the structure hold no meaning to him. In response to the attention to detail specs of the structure he claims “ use (utilitarianism) never does anything but shelter meaning” (7). If this is so then does that mean he would consider the tower to be a piece of art more so than the Sun Tower because of it’s “utterly uselessness” function considering he believes that “the function of art is to reveal the profound uselessness of objects”. Whereas the tower shelters physically nothing it still is able to attract hoards of visitors annually. The visitors supposedly come to see the tower to manifest or at least participate in their dream they’re composed around this monolith of a structure. But this might be a little romantic. You can find the tower in the most eloquent of Parisian books and on the most watermarked copy of a Danielle Steele book cover. Not everyone goes to Paris for a spiritual voyage to find themselves. Even though he says that the masses are able to transform a place, I can’t say the same about Time Square. I’d have to disagree with Barthes that everyone has a deeply emotional experience when visiting the tower. I’m sure tourists who live near it and have to commute by it everyday are irritated just as New Yorkers are who work in Time Square.

   I do agree that when one visits the tower and “perceive, comprehend, and savor a certain essence of Paris”. It’s impossible for everyone to be utterly moved by this structure to change the place completely but i do have faith in people who visit and take with them an essence of Paris. That seems to be more realistic and rational. It’s ability to transform the landscape and make it naturalized gives it an ability to brighten the landscape. It connects people from the ground to the sky and enables them to see what they wouldn’t normally be able to see. This was conceptualized around the “bird’s eye point of view” as created in the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

  The tower constructed the idea of the panorama by changing the way we receive signals concerning memory and sensation that allows for a unique perception to be channeled by the individual. With this said, they have a complex nature where it is constantly changing. Therefore it can never be considered art because it is unlike a single image that is stagnant. The tower is a witness to the three functions of human life: knowledge, habitation, and business. It attracts people to the west and southern views where the most cosmopolitan reside. It is a witness to the sunset and illuminates the sky at night. In many ways the tower is a convoluted paradox that holds a plethora of perceptions. It has a sense of familiarity even though it is crowded with tourists or otherwise strangers from around the world.

In Ian Bogost’s article Egg McNothin‘ he explains that McDonalds fast food chain choosing to make their Egg McMuffins available all day long is truly a disservice. He feels that most of the beauty of the Egg McMuffin was that it was only available for breakfast. If you missed the cutoff, that’s it, none for you. In this article I think Bogost brings to light three very important ideas.

He starts off by saying “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have—or at least, the one we cannot have very often.” This idea that part of enjoying something is the desire beforehand is actually very relatable. When someone works hard for something that thing becomes much more satisfying once it is attained as apposed to something that is handed to you hassle-free. This is a natural sensation that I think everyone experiences throughout life. Not that the Egg McMuffin is something that people work very hard to get, but knowing it is only served at certain times and buying one at that time is a system that is satisfying and reliable. When something is available all the time it can make it seem less special. He says, “When anytime is breakfast time, why even bother wanting breakfast.” If you can have breakfast at lunchtime or dinner time is it even still considered breakfast? He continues, “America is giving up McDonalds breakfast as an indulgence meant mostly to be missed rather than savored.”

Second, an important idea I think Bogost touches upon is the idea that in life things are not always available whenever you want them. The Egg McMuffin only being served on the breakfast menu and not later is a perfect example of how the world works! In the real world, you can not just expect things to be available 24/7.

“But far from initiating nihilistic despair, this moment invokes an invitation to rise above it. No hash browns, but perhaps fries. No McMuffin, but a cheeseburger is good enough. It’s good enough! The world restores its gentle sufficiency. The man who just-misses McDonald’s breakfast is a commoner’s Samuel Beckett, trudging ever forward despite the intrinsic absurdity of a 10:30a.m. breakfast cutoff. I can’t go on, I’ll go on.”

What this quote is saying is a good life lesson. Essentially Bogost is saying that in life, sometimes you miss out and missing out leads to growth. Not that missing out on an Egg McMuffin will necessarily help you face hardships in the future, but this concept of “I can’t go on, I’ll go on” is a valuable one.

Lastly, I think this article reminds us to appreciate the little things in life. Though the Egg McMuffin is barely a luxury, it represents the smaller things we brush over in course of our busy lives. Getting a breakfast sandwich that is only served for breakfast, for example, is a luxury. We need to slow down and take-in some of these smaller luxuries. Making the Egg McMuffin available all day takes away the appreciation of it. No one is especially happy they get to McDonalds right on time to get the Egg McMuffin if they can get it at any time of day. When something is limited, it forces us to appreciate it.

Therefore, McDonalds making the Egg McMuffin available all day is a seemingly minuscule piece of news in the midst of our chaotic world- but it is not “McNothin'” it’s actually a whole lot of “McSomethin'” that people should stop and think about.

When reading Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying In a Non-Moral Sense”, we are asked to figure out what his concept of truth is. It is much more complex than simply stating that telling the truth is good and lying is not. Rather, he goes on to discuss the roots of truth and where it originates from. Language and the play of words are both crucial factors in this theory in order to understand what truth is to Nietzsche.

Nietzsche writes, “Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor…” (p.768), and from this we can see that Nietzsche is very critical about the essence of truth, that it is a not real thing. He argues that truth is simply a metaphor that is used so frequently until we forget where it came from, and as a result we declare it as the truth. As humans we claim to have immense knowledge, but the truth in all of this knowledge has been replaced by metaphors and illusions; we make ourselves believe the lie and declare it as the truth.

In our society, human beings produce the moral impulse to not lie, but Nietzsche does not agree to the existing society or its ways, so he dismisses the idea of the truth as well. Nietzsche discusses how important language is in order to decipher the truth. It is questionable that language expresses all realities. Both language and writing can be easily deceptive, such as poetry and art. When trying to figure out what they mean, we have to observe several different perspectives in order to find the truth. Nietzsche argues that a person who has the ability to have multiple perspectives on a certain idea is one step closer to discovering the truth. However, most people will only try to make their own personal perspective into a reality rather than trying to explore the views of others. Nietzsche writes, “Human beings do not so much flee from being tricked as from being harmed by being tricked.” (p. 766). As human beings, we are willing to accept the truth only when it won’t harm us, otherwise we choose to be deceived by lies, because it is the safer alternative. I do not believe that Nietzsche is necessarily saying that the truth doesn’t exist, but rather that the truth is not something that most human beings can easily perceive.

Nietzsche forms his argument by first discussing that intellect is human and goes on to explain why there is a false appearance of the truth. He poses his argument as a conversation with himself, asking a series of questions and then answering them. One of his questions is What is truth. It is apparent that Nietzsche is trying to form a theory about truth, and it is much more complex that saying that truth is good and lies are bad. Language plays a big role in his argument and he asserts that words are symbols for things which in turn become concepts.

During his essay Nietzsche seems to be critical of truth. He writes, “Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour,…” 768. Metaphors have replaced the truth in language. Therefore, it is no longer truth, humans have created a lie and has been used so frequently that it has mistakenly become the truth. We are so knowledgeable, yet all this knowledge we know is just metaphors. His conversation on language leads me to believe that language in itself has become deceptive and synthetic.

Later in the essay it is discussed that those who try to reconstruct language challenge and change these arbitrary meanings, such as poets and artists. We have to look through many different perspectives in order to reach the truth. Nietzsche is arguing that we must be willing to open up and live moment by moment, rather than living a life that somehow has a tangible meaning. As humans we lack the ability to understand truth according to Nietzsche, “Truth too, is only desired by human beings in a similarly limited sense. They desire the pleasant, life preserving consequences of the truth” 766. As humans, we are only willing to accept truth when it is not going to harm us, rather choosing to accept and be deceived by lies. It applies to the way we view the truth in the sense that it is something that is only good. Truth rather is intertwined with lies, therefore never being pure.

After reading Nietzsche argument and understanding his definition of truth I have to agree. As humans we cannot be subjective in regards to truth. I don’t particularly think that Nietzsche wants us to believe that their is no truth, but rather that truth is something that may not be pleasant or that is purely truth. We must try to reconstruct and refashion language to give it life.

“On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense” by Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche delved into an analysis of what “truth” means throughout the reading and its intermingling with “lying”. The analysis that  “truth” are “illusions of which we have established, canonical, and binding; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions…” (768) is a theory that I have come upon before. I deeply believe that we should question the social systems that we have been built upon and that through hegemony and government are enforced. At the same time I don’t agree that they are “illusions”, because these systems that have become “truths” hold material impact on our everyday life. I feel that this “truth” is not included in Nietzsche article.  

Nietzsche also goes further into this analysis as he delves into an existential crisis by asking the question “what do human beings really know about themselves?”(765) This questions to me seems to address two points. One, is that though in our world we are bombarded with messages about life purposes, desires… etc, we are expected to know enough about ourselves. Thus this question- is a change- as it leaves us open to growth- we are on our way to learning more about ourselves if we make more space for even the unknown. That’s where I think the second point I see come form which is- this question of how we view ourselves in the face of this world- that we are also labeling with our own “truths”.

Nietzsche delves into this idea of perception throughout his article as well. Nietzsche says that nature does not conform to this laws. Nature doesn’t see the “objective truths” that mankind has pushed. Nietzsche has this example– where he compares the different perception of a bird and human being. The idea that we should take into account other perceptions of a certain view point I believe is important. It is a way that we can challenge our own “truths” because we will see that it will not apply to everyone.  I think this viewpoint that Nietzsche provides would give people more room to really look at their perspective- what are they missing out- what “truths are holding them back”… etc.

Throughout reading this piece by Nietzsche I thought about if there were any “universal truths” that are hold by human beings and two- legged and multi legged creatures and other beings. I don’t believe there are any “universal truths” that are hold by everyone- at a surface level- but I believe deep down into our souls we do have more common “universal truths”. I also believe it’s okay that not everyone has to have the same “universal truth” however I do believe in community- and that there are people who have the same viewpoints as me and that will support me.

When a German guy with a crazy mustache opens his mind, its crazy what discoveries he can make about the reality of this world.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche thought deeply on the nature of what is true and what is false. He thought deeply on the nature of language. He comes to a conclusion that what we think to be true is actually false and that language is actually dead.

Nietzsche identifies the “truth”, saying, “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves,” I believe he is trying to remind us of our own personalities as human beings, saying that we are very arrogant. That we proudly make claims to show that we have some form of knowledge. He recognizes that the possession or the lack of knowledge is the key determining factor that distinguishes one human being from another and that when we try to boast of how powerful we are, we always do so by showing how much we know. However, in the same exact sentence, he launches an attack on this “truth”, saying that, “and yet we only possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.” By saying this, I feel that he is blatantly saying that humans talk a big game, but really have no idea what they’re talking about. Since the things we say are only metaphors and don’t actually correspond to what something actually is, he’s implying that we don’t have any idea of what things actually are, otherwise why wouldn’t we address them as they actually were?  (Nietzsche 767)

Clearly, there is much truth to what Nietzsche is saying about our modern idea of what “truth” is. Humans don’t actually identify an existence in its infinite status. Humans identify an existence as its present, very finite status, more specifically, what they’re looking at, right then and there, at that exact moment. Moreover, a person will give a name to that something and then no more than a day later this same person may give that same thing a completely different name. Even moreover that, the initial name that they gave to the existence, they will give to another existent. Our idea of what we think is truth is always changing due to our own arbitrary borders. We don’t stop to appreciate an existence for its infinite meaning, a meaning that will never fall subject to modification or manipulation by human beings.

Nietzsche identifies “language” as metaphors when he says, “The stimulation of a nerve is first translated into an image: first metaphor! The image is then imitated by a sound: second metaphor!” He sets this as the basis of all language. He describes to us that when we see something, our brain comes up with an idea of what it is, an image. This image is followed up by an arbitrary sound so that it can be identified. I feel that the main point is that the sound is arbitrary. It can change if it needs to be changed and because of this flexibility, the sound loses its romantic bond to the image. The image, regardless of the sound that we give to it, has its own natural sound, which is only recognized by the one who created it. The image is in love with its natural sound, which is undefinable by us. Due to our inability to understand what the image’s true natural sound really is, we can never do it any justice because we can never give it any significant relationship to its sound. (Nietzsche 767)

Nietzsche says that due to our extensive use and categorization of these languages, that it has become like a columbarium. He says, “the great edifice of concepts exhibits the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium,” and that these concepts are “the left-over residue of metaphors,” Each of these sounds that we subjectively assign to the images that we see are, to us, concepts. When we find a concept which is better than an existing one, we replace it and over time we as humans have replaced many concepts with ones that we think are better, when in reality, we are launching ourselves further away from the original sounds of the images that we once had, from the original metaphor that gave to an image to relate it to a sound. I think what he’s saying is that due to our indecisiveness, we have mangled the language so much so that it became a hollow, rigid, soulless, shell of what it once use to be. (Nietzsche 768)

Although I understand and agree with what he is saying about our idea of “language”, I strongly feel that this is necessary for our existence to cooperate with itself. We formulate the concepts that form a language for our own convenience because of our very specific lack of ability to identify the eternal state of a creation. We must always speak with ourselves in a way that doesn’t cause any problems within our intellectual homes. If we have to toss out a concept because there’s a better one, it would be something which is easy to do and easy to spread. It is infinitely more difficult if not impossible for us to try and dissect a creation in order to find its true sound. I feel that it was just never meant to be that way, otherwise all of intelligence that humankind possess would have already come together and come up with a solution. I think that there is no cure for this because its not a disease, its merely a necessary wound, keeping in mind that not all wounds heal.