In the article, the author is making a question about whether a lot of information accessible to people have enhanced the knowledge of people. Alain de Botton’s view toward the question is non-changing and strict throughout the whole passage. He says “We pay a price for all the information we consume these days-and it’s knowing less”, which means that more information don’t help people to learn a lot. With a huge amount of information, people have difficulties to differentiate right and wrong information. The article points out these drawbacks of “information flood”. It is comparing the technology of these days with the religious things of the past. He is saying that it was much better for people to learn in the past, dividing his points into four ; novelty, fasting, wisdom, and elevation.
The author is negative toward the novelty and fastness of today’s information. In the part of novelty, he states that while people try to attain the perfect level of technology and politics, they are missing a chance of reminding eternal truth. However, the author’s opinion is ambiguous that what is the truth and how a lot of information intervene people toward the truth. In my opinion, novelty is helpful for people because it keeps information new, which makes people always progressive. The development of information can develop people at the same time. The author should have mentioned how the progression opposes the eternity to strengthen the opinion. More information can also help people attain the truth since it makes people to think a lot in various viewpoints. In the part of fastness, he argues that the fast changing or updating information makes people confused compared to the previous timetabled routines. He also points out that it is difficult to leave a monument. However, instead of making monuments, fast information can help people know easily and swiftly. The accuracy of information increases, too. Therefore, the negative attitude toward the novelty and fastness of these days’ information is not understandable.
The author claims that the religion in the past is better for people to elevate their wisdom than the much information in the present. He says people have lost the ability to sense information these days since they are caught by “flood”. In his points, getting information from the past, especially the few amount of religion, is the real deepening of understanding and thinking. He also says the low price of today’s information is not a good point since the quality is low. On the other hand, I disagree with the author’s point because the cheapness can be a strong merit of having an access on information.
The author is showing a strict attitude all over the article, supporting the past and religion, while opposing the present and vast information. Alain de Botton keeps saying that people should diet on their information. I partly agree with his idea, however, I strongly believe that there are many good points of today’s technological improvement, especially giving people an opportunity to make an access to various information in a short time.
