My Graduation Speech

It seemed that this speech stirred up some aggravation among my fellow honor classmates. I guess they did not like to be put in the position of categorizing themselves an Athenian or Visigoth. In My Graduating Speech, Postman encourages students to not be a Visigoth, but to exemplify the character of an Athenian. He defines those two terms, Visigoth and Athenian, as one that destroys art and knowledge, and one that discovers and cherishes art and knowledge, respectively. Postman gives ample examples of how the Athenians sought after knowledge, cherished language, held on to traditions, was active in political matters, etc. Whereas the Visigoths were depicted as ruthless and brutal, destroying everything good.

The problem my classmates had was that these descriptions of the two peoples was not accurate. That, as Postman encourages, to be wholly Athenian was also to be a murder, greedy politician, conquerors, etc.

That also raised a point of whether to be the Athenian as Postman describes was beneficial to everyone. Because sometimes those that cherish the arts and knowledge do always use them for the good. Sometimes they are down right selfish about it. Which is more likely, someone who strives for knowledge to help the better of mankind and all its problems, or someone who strives for knowledge to help his own profit at whatever cost it may be?

What I gathered from reading the speech was that Postman was trying to encourage his audience/readers to continue to strive after knowledge, to preserve the arts. One of the reasons I didn't get distracted with his "either or" mentality was because I am not a very big history expert. I didn't know not to believe what he said about the the Athenians and Visigoths. I suppose that means a slight failure on my part as an Honors student who is supposed to question everything she reads and find out through research the truth. Well, my excuse is that I am a young Honors student, whose brain is opened to knowledge.