Life in the Digital Now

In this TED talk by Abha Dawesar argues that the use of technology disrupts our flow of time.  She used the comparison of life to a story. She, as a novelist, views our life with two divisions of time, stories and life as: "a long arc of time that is our lifespan, and the timeframe of direct experience that is the moment." Eventually she describes the impact that technology has had on our interpretation of of the smallest moments of our lives. Technology forces us to live in a world that is a few seconds ahead, in a world where we are constantly more concerned with refreshing a twitter feed than life around us. Her next point was the fact that technology distracts us from the true present time period around us. Overall, her talk aims to encourage people to step away from technology to see how it affects their own digital present and into the true present. 

Dawesar's argument is effective through her use of logos and pathos. Her examples of technology during Hurricane Sandy and experiences of life before technology offer backing to the idea that technology is taking over our lives by allowing us to step back and logically look at how much we miss when looking at technology. Her only obvious bias that might impair the quality of her argument might be the fact that she is a middle age woman. In her lifetime she has the ability to remember a time before such prevalent technology where as a high school student who has grown up surrounded and learning from technology may have a differing opinion.  Despite this her argument remains sound.  She attempts to add pathos by including stories of her family that appeal to people's emotions. Using phrases like "flow of love" she connects technology to typically emotional ideas like love and family.

I chose this talk because it was most relevant to my life. Technology controls everything I do. Even sitting here, I am currently texting, watching Netflix, and listening to a TED talk. How is that possible? Its not. As Dawesar said technology gives us "the sensation that time's arrow is pointing everywhere and nowhere at once". I can use technology to do everything and nothing all at once. Before this TED Talk I considered this a good thing, technology opened a world of relaxation and mindless activity, but from this I have learned that technology has changed more than that. I am now look at technology like a change to my natural way of time. It interrupts my ability to enjoy the world happening all around me. What makes us human is the fact that we seek advancement. Technology has become prominent in our lives because of this advancement. I believe that though all the negatives mentioned technology provides an advancement in society that is greater.

Who's the Hero?

In the movie, Double Indemnity, few characters, if any, prove themselves to be a stereotypical hero that fights for good. In fact almost every character has an alternative motive to pursue the truth. 


My personal definition of a hero comes from years of watching sappy movies and reading classic children's books. I believe a hero is someone that above all fights for the good and wellbeing of others. When thinking of a character that fits this definition only one character comes to mind, Barton Keyes. Barton Keyes works along side Walter Neff at the insurance company. Keyes was the only character who questioned the motives of the others and worked to uncover the mystery. Without Keyes this story would be a story of a couple getting away with murder. However with Keyes in the picture, there is a force for good who complicates things. This is why I believe Keyes is the hero of the story, he gives contrast and, just like my storybook definition, fights for the good of others. On the other hand Keyes doesn't necessarily look for the killers for all the right reasons. Because he works at the insurance company, if he hadn't found the murders, the company would have been forced to pay a huge sum to Phyllis Dietrichson. This bias adds a negativity to his title as the story's hero.


A dictionary.com definition of the word hero says, "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deedsand noble qualities". In some ways you can argue that Walter Neff fits this certain definition. To fool the insurance system Neff created an elaborate plan to murder Phyllis's husband, by this standard Walter is "a man of distinguished courage or ability". He was able to use his intelligence and with a ton of courage he was able to create a seemingly fool proof plan for murder. I believe he also fits the second half of this definition. Even thought he was committing an evil act, I admire him for doing it for a noble purpose. I think that he really did believe Phyllis loved him and more than he believed she was unhappy in her marriage and the death of her husband would free her from an unfortunate marriage. With this in mind I believe the Walter clearly fits this definition of a hero, even if he was committing a evil deed. 

I believe that the movie, Double Indemnity, does have heroes. While none of them are completely free of evil, Walter and Keyes both fit certain definitions of a hero. Keyes being more of the classic storybook character and Walter being more of a strict definition hero. There characters prove that heroes are not always the same and they are not always perfect. As my favorite Harry Potter quote says, "We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. Thats who we really are." Each of these characters has the qualities of being a hero, what matters is the part they choose to act most on.