Art of Democracy
The other day, I was listening to my parents and brother argue. It was over my sensitivity to the paint fumes, and resulting fourth day of sleeping in the front room, I had, at one point, left to the back of the house and thus heard them speak of me when not in my presence. My brother was angry that he couldn't watch television past nine o'clock due to my sleeping habits and wanted me out so he could happily watch the large screen. But, my father rebuked him, saying that he was "the lowest one on the totem pole," because he had no job, no diploma, and did nothing around the house and thus had no say of the household's members.
Thinking to myself, I realized how true my father was. Yet, I began to think of how much I myself did around the house. Little to naught, I concluded and began thinking of how to contribute my skills around the house (which is falling apart) and relieve some stress of my parent's own.
I just say and waited until the argument fizzled out and ended in a doorslam, not wanting to explore the remaining anger there.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Midterm Practice
Prompt:
“Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent . . . . And generally all actions which men do [sic] in Common-wealths, for fear [sic] of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit […]. Liberty and Necessity are Consistent [. . .]. [B]ecause they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty; and yet, because every act of man’s [sic] will, and every desire, and inclination proceeds [sic] from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual [sic] chain [sic], (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes,) they proceed from necessity.”
- Thomas Hobbes
Everyone lives in fear. Hobbes believes that natural liberty results in such a fear, and was thus omitted via the ways of commonwealth. Yet, he was mistaken in such a thought for those who joined the commonwealth did not always practice the sacrifice of their freedoms for safety they receive. Though law is to diminish terror, it can never destroy fear.
Hobbes has made governance a clear matter of unity throughout his Leviathan. But this direct quotation of his text state that, in simplest of terms that liberty of men is war (which is, in his terms, every man against every man) for no man can govern himself appropriately for the good of mankind without a peaceful covenant (society) to guide him. And this war is made up of his needs, as thus it "proceed[s] from necessity", or, in a sense, all their liberties (and thus their lives) stem from their necessities and absolute need for their procuration. Each man must, himself, acquire enough to continue his survival, and that soon takes precedence over that of his fellow's survival, stealing whatever he may need from said fellow (even so much as their life) via liberties acquired through the natural state of man. Adversely, those from whom the necessities are acquired live in a state of fear, wondering, as they continue to survive- weather struggling or doing such easily - if they will wake up the next morn. Hobbe's continues, though, that in commonwealths it becomes the fear of the law that pushes man to find more peaceful relations and omit the liberties he would have otherwise used to attain these necessities. Thus, it is not so much that "Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent..." and "Liberty and Necessity are Consistent...", rather that fear and necessity are bound together and thus consistent to the ties brought on by man's liberty (both individual and that of the commonwealth).
And though these liberties were to be omitted in conjoining with the commonwealth, there are still those whom strive to keep them. Bound to the commonwealth they have become and seek haven amongst it, but they dissent from what they must give in return in order to create a true commonwealth, a power of all united in one. These people are known as criminals, using their natural liberties - which have been willingly relinquished in the creation of the commonwealth - to meet their own necessities and selfish gains. In the sense of the consistencies between liberty, needs, and fear Hobbes was correct; yet, in belief that the only fear in the omition of their liberty would be to the law was erroneous. For, those who have their necessities must arm themselves with what the commonwealth will allow to protect themselves from these dissenters, in both the manner of bodily injury and economic loss. These peoples (and those who have little of their needs met) must live in fear of what will soon happen to them by ways of these criminals, who, as would brutes, will murder and steal to gain what they wish. When omitted, these liberties cause no fear, but dissenters of the commonwealth practice them still, scorching away the peace which was once commonwealth.
As thus, the fears derived by natural liberty were never vanquished. Necessity is met by ways of force via the powers of freedom in man. Laws are a testament to find peaceful ways to meet such needs within the covenants of security that bind the commonwealth, with the dread of disobeying such laws omitting certain peoples liberties in relation of that. But, laws do not stop all, and there are still those whom practice their natural born freedoms as they dissent the commonwealths of security to which they are bound. Man has thus not surrendered himself to the higher power of religion, justice, or even society. To each his own, the unwritten law of humanity, for it defines each and every action.
“Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent . . . . And generally all actions which men do [sic] in Common-wealths, for fear [sic] of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit […]. Liberty and Necessity are Consistent [. . .]. [B]ecause they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty; and yet, because every act of man’s [sic] will, and every desire, and inclination proceeds [sic] from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual [sic] chain [sic], (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes,) they proceed from necessity.”
- Thomas Hobbes
Everyone lives in fear. Hobbes believes that natural liberty results in such a fear, and was thus omitted via the ways of commonwealth. Yet, he was mistaken in such a thought for those who joined the commonwealth did not always practice the sacrifice of their freedoms for safety they receive. Though law is to diminish terror, it can never destroy fear.
Hobbes has made governance a clear matter of unity throughout his Leviathan. But this direct quotation of his text state that, in simplest of terms that liberty of men is war (which is, in his terms, every man against every man) for no man can govern himself appropriately for the good of mankind without a peaceful covenant (society) to guide him. And this war is made up of his needs, as thus it "proceed[s] from necessity", or, in a sense, all their liberties (and thus their lives) stem from their necessities and absolute need for their procuration. Each man must, himself, acquire enough to continue his survival, and that soon takes precedence over that of his fellow's survival, stealing whatever he may need from said fellow (even so much as their life) via liberties acquired through the natural state of man. Adversely, those from whom the necessities are acquired live in a state of fear, wondering, as they continue to survive- weather struggling or doing such easily - if they will wake up the next morn. Hobbe's continues, though, that in commonwealths it becomes the fear of the law that pushes man to find more peaceful relations and omit the liberties he would have otherwise used to attain these necessities. Thus, it is not so much that "Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent..." and "Liberty and Necessity are Consistent...", rather that fear and necessity are bound together and thus consistent to the ties brought on by man's liberty (both individual and that of the commonwealth).
And though these liberties were to be omitted in conjoining with the commonwealth, there are still those whom strive to keep them. Bound to the commonwealth they have become and seek haven amongst it, but they dissent from what they must give in return in order to create a true commonwealth, a power of all united in one. These people are known as criminals, using their natural liberties - which have been willingly relinquished in the creation of the commonwealth - to meet their own necessities and selfish gains. In the sense of the consistencies between liberty, needs, and fear Hobbes was correct; yet, in belief that the only fear in the omition of their liberty would be to the law was erroneous. For, those who have their necessities must arm themselves with what the commonwealth will allow to protect themselves from these dissenters, in both the manner of bodily injury and economic loss. These peoples (and those who have little of their needs met) must live in fear of what will soon happen to them by ways of these criminals, who, as would brutes, will murder and steal to gain what they wish. When omitted, these liberties cause no fear, but dissenters of the commonwealth practice them still, scorching away the peace which was once commonwealth.
As thus, the fears derived by natural liberty were never vanquished. Necessity is met by ways of force via the powers of freedom in man. Laws are a testament to find peaceful ways to meet such needs within the covenants of security that bind the commonwealth, with the dread of disobeying such laws omitting certain peoples liberties in relation of that. But, laws do not stop all, and there are still those whom practice their natural born freedoms as they dissent the commonwealths of security to which they are bound. Man has thus not surrendered himself to the higher power of religion, justice, or even society. To each his own, the unwritten law of humanity, for it defines each and every action.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Racism in Bacon's Rebellion Essay Reflection
Honestly, I believe I barely passed this essay. As a piece of my writing, it's poorly written. I have plenty of excuses for the formatting of this, stress from PSATs, scholarships, illness, the habitual Jane Schaeffer method and the like; but, none of these should have hindered my performance so. During the languorous two weeks of this essay I grew bored of it and only put in partial effort as the deadline drew closer. When I should have been working on this essay I, instead, started to do all in my ability to not to the essay until the last day - a time when I, at least, felt some interest again.
My writing philosophy has been consistent, but has many flaws. These flaws I've seen before, such as my restive nature towards writing. And, for this essay, my largest mistake would be in the failure to plan and follow through on the plans I did make. These flaws usually pertain to my short stories and novels, for naught but few have been completed due to my more direct focus on the present and trifles which accompany it. Instead of my normal draft per night, this essay took a lethargic pace and had a mere two rough drafts before being finalized.
There is but one major difference betwixt college and high school writing that I've come to notice. This is that you must gather, validate, and paraphrase all of your sources. Dissimilar from high school, in which only textbooks were the source, college level writing comes from a variety of sources which one must gather. Therein comes the challenge: an argument with the basal of critical, and diverse, information. Most definitely, the lack of Jane Schaeffer protocol in writing. Albeit, the method provides a helpful outline on which to write upon, with variations of it to be used conclusively, college allows students on a free-for-all that created a further individuality in each work and a more developmental argument.
For my next essay I know, for a definite fact, one thing I will do differently. I will not adhere to the in-class schedule. Following such a regulation resulted in my boredom and my shunning of the essay until the due date. Also, I will put more commentary with each concrete detail (similar to the Jane Schaeffer method: 2 cm to 1 cd) so that I can actually present the argument instead of a bunch of bland facts strung together with the most minute ways of connecting with the overall argument. Moreover, I will be sure that my concluding sentences and topic sentences flow together nicely in a way that doesn't feel jagged and inconclusive, offering nice transitions. Peradventure I should look over old essays for a basal idea on what I should now do in regards to my writing. But, I know I definitely need to keep myself on top of things this time around.
My writing philosophy has been consistent, but has many flaws. These flaws I've seen before, such as my restive nature towards writing. And, for this essay, my largest mistake would be in the failure to plan and follow through on the plans I did make. These flaws usually pertain to my short stories and novels, for naught but few have been completed due to my more direct focus on the present and trifles which accompany it. Instead of my normal draft per night, this essay took a lethargic pace and had a mere two rough drafts before being finalized.
There is but one major difference betwixt college and high school writing that I've come to notice. This is that you must gather, validate, and paraphrase all of your sources. Dissimilar from high school, in which only textbooks were the source, college level writing comes from a variety of sources which one must gather. Therein comes the challenge: an argument with the basal of critical, and diverse, information. Most definitely, the lack of Jane Schaeffer protocol in writing. Albeit, the method provides a helpful outline on which to write upon, with variations of it to be used conclusively, college allows students on a free-for-all that created a further individuality in each work and a more developmental argument.
For my next essay I know, for a definite fact, one thing I will do differently. I will not adhere to the in-class schedule. Following such a regulation resulted in my boredom and my shunning of the essay until the due date. Also, I will put more commentary with each concrete detail (similar to the Jane Schaeffer method: 2 cm to 1 cd) so that I can actually present the argument instead of a bunch of bland facts strung together with the most minute ways of connecting with the overall argument. Moreover, I will be sure that my concluding sentences and topic sentences flow together nicely in a way that doesn't feel jagged and inconclusive, offering nice transitions. Peradventure I should look over old essays for a basal idea on what I should now do in regards to my writing. But, I know I definitely need to keep myself on top of things this time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
