If it's a little rough around the edges, forgive me, because it's my first try.
No Paradise To Lose: A Writing on Utopia
No Paradise To Lose: A Writing on Utopia
My First attempt at SocioPhilosophical Writing
- Thread starter Horus
- Start date
Justin S.
Member
It seems one must be registered on the Kamelot forum to view your writings.
Please provide another link if you want those with taste to read it
.
Please provide another link if you want those with taste to read it
.
Justin S.
Member
Thats a monster of an essay for someone your age (18 pages, single spaced).
I did not recognize the author of the quote that starts your paper (Nicolas Berdiaeff), so I googled him, and found its part of the forward to A Brave New World. I went to my bookshelf and pulled down my copy (I was assigned it in high school, and I am assuming you were as well) and found that his statement is in French (however, I know enough that I could read it- did you translate it?)
I didn't read your paper entirely (it is quite long) but I did look over it quickly, and am curious to know if this an extension of an assignment or simply on your own, because its literally like a tour of your mind- sometimes formal, often colloquial, with profanity and plugs for corrupt.org thrown in for good measure. It covers a wide range of ideas and opinions within a very loose structure.
Also, Berdiaeff's comments are not supportive, but critical of the notion of "Utopias" (note his quotation of "perfect"). It seems he views the idea as a dangerous temptation- one that leads man to think he can achieve such a thing through total social, technological, and biological control- he his, in effect, describing Huxley's novel that follows. Your disagreement with his statement is a bit off the mark.
However, I do encourage you to continue reading/writing as that is the only way to progress. Also, if you were to present something smaller and more focused, there is a good chance that some of the regulars around here would give you helpful feedback on your arguments, and point you in the direction of useful resources.
I did not recognize the author of the quote that starts your paper (Nicolas Berdiaeff), so I googled him, and found its part of the forward to A Brave New World. I went to my bookshelf and pulled down my copy (I was assigned it in high school, and I am assuming you were as well) and found that his statement is in French (however, I know enough that I could read it- did you translate it?)
I didn't read your paper entirely (it is quite long) but I did look over it quickly, and am curious to know if this an extension of an assignment or simply on your own, because its literally like a tour of your mind- sometimes formal, often colloquial, with profanity and plugs for corrupt.org thrown in for good measure
. It covers a wide range of ideas and opinions within a very loose structure.Also, Berdiaeff's comments are not supportive, but critical of the notion of "Utopias" (note his quotation of "perfect"). It seems he views the idea as a dangerous temptation- one that leads man to think he can achieve such a thing through total social, technological, and biological control- he his, in effect, describing Huxley's novel that follows. Your disagreement with his statement is a bit off the mark.
However, I do encourage you to continue reading/writing as that is the only way to progress. Also, if you were to present something smaller and more focused, there is a good chance that some of the regulars around here would give you helpful feedback on your arguments, and point you in the direction of useful resources.
derek
Grey Eminence
Yep, I happen to agree with Justin here. I think you've misread the quotation at the beginning, but overall the essay is quite interesting.
It is very unpolished, but it certainly shows all the characteristics of a writer with some capability, that just needs honed.
It has some grammatical errors, and some areas read quite poorly but overall they do not interrupt the flow of the essay to any great extent.
I think you make some grand assumptions on human nature, that hundreds of years worth of philosophy has not rendered answerable. I think you've identified trends in the way people act, but you make some large presumptions about human nature, seemingly to support your argument. Not that I'd disagree with your general assumption regarding how people act, just that it is damn muddy waters you wade into when you claim that human nature is A over B.
You tend to over generalise quite alot. I'm not saying you're wrong in the various things you have said, just that you assume alot of things without really arguing them, instead you use the words "usually" or "of course" and somtimes I think these points are philosophically arguable. (I am thinking mainly here of when you claim good and bad is subjective and culturally dependent - is that true? and also do most people imagine a Utopia in the way you have outlined?). Some of these are unsound arguments.
All in all, though, it reads quite well and I sure enjoyed it. It's encouraging to read and if you keep at it, I'm sure you'll be crafting fine scholarly works.
To qualify my statement(s), I'm qualified to teach high-school right through to University level, so had this been submitted to me I would have said the above.
It is very unpolished, but it certainly shows all the characteristics of a writer with some capability, that just needs honed.
It has some grammatical errors, and some areas read quite poorly but overall they do not interrupt the flow of the essay to any great extent.
I think you make some grand assumptions on human nature, that hundreds of years worth of philosophy has not rendered answerable. I think you've identified trends in the way people act, but you make some large presumptions about human nature, seemingly to support your argument. Not that I'd disagree with your general assumption regarding how people act, just that it is damn muddy waters you wade into when you claim that human nature is A over B.
You tend to over generalise quite alot. I'm not saying you're wrong in the various things you have said, just that you assume alot of things without really arguing them, instead you use the words "usually" or "of course" and somtimes I think these points are philosophically arguable. (I am thinking mainly here of when you claim good and bad is subjective and culturally dependent - is that true? and also do most people imagine a Utopia in the way you have outlined?). Some of these are unsound arguments.
All in all, though, it reads quite well and I sure enjoyed it. It's encouraging to read and if you keep at it, I'm sure you'll be crafting fine scholarly works.
To qualify my statement(s), I'm qualified to teach high-school right through to University level, so had this been submitted to me I would have said the above.
Thats a monster of an essay for someone your age (18 pages, single spaced).
I did not recognize the author of the quote that starts your paper (Nicolas Berdiaeff), so I googled him, and found its part of the forward to A Brave New World. I went to my bookshelf and pulled down my copy (I was assigned it in high school, and I am assuming you were as well) and found that his statement is in French (however, I know enough that I could read it- did you translate it?)
I didn't read your paper entirely (it is quite long) but I did look over it quickly, and am curious to know if this an extension of an assignment or simply on your own, because its literally like a tour of your mind- sometimes formal, often colloquial, with profanity and plugs for corrupt.org thrown in for good measure
Also, Berdiaeff's comments are not supportive, but critical of the notion of "Utopias" (note his quotation of "perfect"). It seems he views the idea as a dangerous temptation- one that leads man to think he can achieve such a thing through total social, technological, and biological control- he his, in effect, describing Huxley's novel that follows. Your disagreement with his statement is a bit off the mark.
However, I do encourage you to continue reading/writing as that is the only way to progress. Also, if you were to present something smaller and more focused, there is a good chance that some of the regulars around here would give you helpful feedback on your arguments, and point you in the direction of useful resources.
Is this not the somewhat famous (to slavs out there) Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdiaev (or Berdyaev)? Here's a link to his writings: http://http://www.berdyaev.com/
He was a very interesting character: a philosophical product influenced by the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyev of the flowering Russian Symbolist/Decadent movement (an amazing movement that produced the painter Repin, Blok and Bely--a writer and a poet that have no equals in my mind--Kandinsky and more) from the turn of the century on to 1917 until those filthy mean Leninists, who put a stop to all real art, and made the effort of these amazing artists, a mere footnote. Berdiaev was taken by the Cheka (or KGB) tortured, etc, but he still would not repudiate himself; like good secret police of a russian police state, the Check threatened to kill his entire family--every last one of them. But still, Berdiaev refused to give in. Apparently, this impressed the guards, and he was one of the very very few who was then let go. They really did kill or export families, friends, etc.
I agree with Derek' criticisms here. As someone once certified to teach high school social sciences and english (which is not saying much with the state of our American schools), I was most impressed by the quality of the prose itself. You make all the errors Derek mentions, but your prose flows, its easy to read, and its for the most part grammatically sound. I see alot of talent you will one day harness--and then watch society crush or ignore, hehe.
P.S. I love to generalize as well.
As for the ideas present within...well, I think you show your inexperience and age; and frankly I remember composing a few similar essays peppered with questions and observations on human nature. Honestly, I think like me, you're not someone who would enjoy academic philosophy (im not saying you wont understand it, or even explain it better than those dry, witless, write-a-book-like-a-math-equation philosophers these days), but rather you seem as if humanistic pursuits are your calling. But beware, that's the path to critical thinking and poverty.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
As far as grammar goes and what not, any points where I threw in profanity, was probably due to the music I chose to listen to while I was writing it. (in school. The only place where I get any of this done, since I have guitars available to me at home.
) But typos and grammarical errors are just plain my fault.
I think my misinterpretation of the quote probably has to do with the story behind the piece. What happened was while we were reading Brave New World in my Literary Satire class, my teacher gave us an assignment at the beginning of class, to analyze the quote, and to (in one or two sentences) give our opinion and explain ourselves. And I think sh reall may have been part of the cause, because she focused in so much on how "Humanity's coming toward a Utoipa!!" and not on the rest of it really, so I think that's where I went wrong with my interpretation.
About the way I talk about the "common idea of a Utopia", I think that comes from my view on the progression of Technology, in modern society; how for every time we solve one problem, there's a million new ones to be solved, whose solutions also bring about more problems, etc. And in my neighborhood, Technology is as much of a religion as sex, and it just makes me think that people want everything to be perfectly and completely efficient via technology and not through actual work. People just always seem so ungrateful about everything because they have so much available to them which they take for granted.
My teachers always tell me that I should be a Writer, and that I probably can effect the world in my own way with my writing, and part of me becomes kinda sad with the rest of me for wanting to go to school strictly for music.
As far as grammar goes and what not, any points where I threw in profanity, was probably due to the music I chose to listen to while I was writing it. (in school. The only place where I get any of this done, since I have guitars available to me at home.
) But typos and grammarical errors are just plain my fault. I think my misinterpretation of the quote probably has to do with the story behind the piece. What happened was while we were reading Brave New World in my Literary Satire class, my teacher gave us an assignment at the beginning of class, to analyze the quote, and to (in one or two sentences) give our opinion and explain ourselves. And I think sh reall may have been part of the cause, because she focused in so much on how "Humanity's coming toward a Utoipa!!" and not on the rest of it really, so I think that's where I went wrong with my interpretation.
About the way I talk about the "common idea of a Utopia", I think that comes from my view on the progression of Technology, in modern society; how for every time we solve one problem, there's a million new ones to be solved, whose solutions also bring about more problems, etc. And in my neighborhood, Technology is as much of a religion as sex, and it just makes me think that people want everything to be perfectly and completely efficient via technology and not through actual work. People just always seem so ungrateful about everything because they have so much available to them which they take for granted.
My teachers always tell me that I should be a Writer, and that I probably can effect the world in my own way with my writing, and part of me becomes kinda sad with the rest of me for wanting to go to school strictly for music.
A little scattered, a tad emotional, but your thinking is good and that's what counts.
My advice, stream on, create the draft, reorganize your thoughts, consider alternatives and elaborate ..really try and argue against your points, then rewrite into a solid, structured form. This is how I've always done it, and it's always served me well.
My advice, stream on, create the draft, reorganize your thoughts, consider alternatives and elaborate ..really try and argue against your points, then rewrite into a solid, structured form. This is how I've always done it, and it's always served me well.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
I just dowloaded it - and I want to read it, but it may take a while as I also have to try and do at least an hour a day proof reading a very roughly translated book by the Finnish philosopher Pentti Linkola.
I will comment on it eventually though Ptah
I will comment on it eventually though Ptah
Similar threads
