Writing Issue- Writing Process

Michael Piccone

Ariana Paliobagis

February 26, 2008

English 121

 

 

 

 

Writing Process

 

            Writing is an art form, not just a problem to be completed. There are some well defined methods for writing, but as with any art form there are multiple ways to carry out these methods. I think that this makes writing different from other subjects such as math. Writing has some basic ideas as to how one should go about writing a paper, but they are far from concrete. For example, before writing this or any other paper, I open a separate document and just start making bullet points of the things that come to my head while thinking about the topic at hand. This method however may not work for some people.

            The largest problem for most people when it comes to writing a paper is getting started. This is also known as a writers block. This corresponds to the first step in the writing process, prewriting. Some of the most well known prewriting methods are webbing, brainstorming, and outlining. These are the methods that are traditionally taught to us as we are young and so they tend to stick in our minds. However, there are some alternative methods that I have found in my research. One of the most interesting ideas that I have heard was to paint or draw a picture of the topic you are trying to write about. Some people tend to be more visual versus analytic. Therefore, painting a picture might sparks your writing abilities more than say, writing an outline (Anyone ever heard a picture is worth 1000 words?). That will get you through half of your college paper.

            I thought that this method was a great way to describe the writing process, its like painting a picture. First you must choose the type of painting you want to create. Are you trying to write poetry, a college thesis, or a novel? Second you must choose your brush. Are you a more visual person or a logic oriented (right brain or left brain?) and based on that make the decision about how you want to go about getting ideas for your paper. Would you use something a concrete as an outline, or let your ideas flow more freely as you write by using a painting? After these steps you are ready to begin painting you essay.

            One of the major things in writing any paper is don’t stop writing once you have started. Once an artist has started to paint, he does not stop the picture until the bulk of it is finished. I think that this is the second problem for most people in writing a paper. Think of writing a first draft as a free-write. People try to make the paper a final draft from the start. This does not work well because then ideas tend not to flow together very well, just as the colors and lines of a painting wont blend together well if an artist stops and restarts on a painting.

There are reasons why teachers make students write first, second, and even third drafts. Drafts are meant to be touched up, shaded, and edited until the picture comes out perfect. Revising is a critical step in the writing process. There are a lot of methods to revising a paper once it is written. Reading a paper aloud to yourself or others is a great way to do this. People on the outside may have some great ideas and feedback about how to make your paper better. An artist takes a step back from his painting once he has finished the bulk of it to get a perspective on what the viewer (reader) will see. Based on this, the artist will shade things more, add colors, remove parts of the painting, just as any good writer would. No paper comes out perfect the first time. Along with this step comes the editing. This step involves making sure all of the grammar is correct. Some steps for doing this are to read each sentence backwards from the end of your paper to the beginning. This allows one to not so much focus on the topic or flow of the paper, but more on the grammar and agreement of each sentence separately. Again, having someone read the paper to themselves allows them to catch errors that may not be caught by the writer. An artist may have a peer look at his painting before putting it on display to the group.

The final step is publishing the paper. Most college papers require some sort of heading or title page. Look at the requirements for the paper. Is it supposed to be bound or put in a folder? Every final draft should include copies of your prewriting, all of the drafts written, and of course the final draft. This is the same as an artist framing or not framing his painting. They decide the way that the painting looks the best and put it in that form. Do they hang it or let it sit on the floor? One way to make sure that all of the things that you need to include is to save anything that has been used to write the paper in the folder that will be turned in. This way nothing can get misplaced and it can also be used in the revising process for more ideas, if needed.

The final thought that I have on the writing process is, use what works best for you as a writer. If music helps, use it. Writing is not math. One does not need to follow steps in a certain order. It’s perfectly okay to jump between the steps I have defined as long as you get the bulk of the ideas down in one sitting. Find the right environment to write. If you find that you work better in silence, find a sound proof room. If you work better with noise, go to a kegger and write down what comes to your head. Don’t be ashamed to write anywhere you want, or at least take notes. The only way to find out what works for you is to write more. You never know what is going to inspire that 50 page thesis.

Research

1.      ABC’s of the writing process-http://www.angelfire.com/wi/writingprocess/index.html

2.      The Writing Process-http://www.geocities.com/fifth_grade_tpes/writing_process.html

3.      Why Writing Is The Ultimate Art form-http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/12/0420282.php

4.      Pocket Keys for Writers-Ann Raimes

5.      Reading the World: Ideas That Matter-Michael Austin

Wordiness. How to avoid/fix it.

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121 Presentation

February 27, 2008Wordiness:  how to avoid/fix it

·         Why does wordiness happen?  Three main reasons. 

1.       When we talk we use a lot of fillers that don’t do anything to help clarify our point—and a lot of times this translates over into our writing.  This results in wordiness, or extra “fluff” in your paper.

2.       “Your wordiness may derive from a problem unrelated to your writing style: uncertainty about your topic, lack of a developed argument, or lack of evidence.”  So if you are unsure about what you are saying, or what you want to talk about, then you tend to ramble.

3.       “Some writers, in an effort to make a page limit, will be wordy on purpose—this is usually obvious to the teacher or reader.  It leads to rambling and can make your reader lose interest. 

·         Some different “types of wordiness” and how to look for them.

·         Doubling of Words (choose one):

	mutual agreement (agreement)	future prospects (prospects)
	consensus of opinion (consensus)	reconsider again (reconsider)
	whether or not (whether)

·         Intensifiers, Qualifiers (omit or give specific details):

	very	really
	extremely	definitely
	a considerable amount of	to a certain extent

·         Formulaic Phrases (use a one-word form or omit):

	for the purpose of (to)	due to the fact that (because)
	at this point in time (now)	in the near future (soon)
	with regard to (about)	in view of the fact that (because)
	as the case may be (—)	Basically, . . . (—)

 Short phrases can often times be replaced with one word.  Examples:

It is crucial that	must, should
It is necessary that
There is a need/necessity for
It is important that

Is able to	can
Is in a position to
Has the opportunity to
Has the capacity for
Has the ability to

It is possible that	may, might, can, could
There is a chance that
It could happen that
The possibility exists for

Example sentences:

Problem: Lots of qualifiers (very, often, hopefully, practically, basically, really, mostly)

Example: Most people usually think that many puppies are generally pretty cute.

How to correct it: Eliminate some of these qualifiers and you will have a stronger, more direct point. Some qualifiers are necessary, but you should use them carefully and thoughtfully.

Better example: Most people think that puppies are cute.

Problem: Using two words that mean the same thing

Example: Adrienne fulfilled all our hopes and dreams when she saved the whole entire planet.

How to correct it: Choose the most precise term and delete the extra one.

Better example: Adrienne fulfilled all our hopes when she saved the planet.

·         Now that we know what “wordiness” looks like, here’s how to fix it.

1.       Writing how you speak is ok, but only for brainstorming and first drafts.  Once you recognize the different types of wordiness, it’s easier to go back and edit that first draft-specifically targeting those extra words and eliminating them.

2.       Earlier I said that wordiness can result from uncertainty about your topic or the lack of a developed argument.  When you aren’t sure exactly how you feel about a subject, or you’re not sure exactly what to say then you tend to ramble on—or you type/write something just to get something down on paper.  When you do this your writing is often ‘fluffy” and doesn’t get to the point.  To avoid this, develop an outline previous to your first draft, or really condense your ideas so that you know exactly what you want to talk about. 

3.       Having to make a page limit results in wordiness.  Once again, an outline is a good idea.  Think of extra ideas so that you don’t run out of things to talk about.  But make sure they have to do with your topic.  Think of examples in your own life, or how you could apply what you are talking about to your life.

4.       Some other tips might be to use a thesaurus to find alternate word choices.  Another good thing to do is peer revision.  Your friends, or whoever reads through your paper, will most likely be honest with you and tell you what sounds weird.  Usually if a sentence sounds weird, it’s because it’s wordy.  These are just a few helpful tips.

Summary:

·         Avoid writing how you talk.

·         Try to develop your topic as much as possible before starting paper.

·         Brainstorm other things you can talk about that are related to your topic—so that it’s easier for you to make that page limit and avoid rambling. 

Thesis/Focus Presentation

Keely Boulton

English Presentation

February 29, 2008

I.  Defining the Problem

            Many people have a hard time narrowing their ideas into a clear and definite thesis statement.

            -Being stuck in the thesis statement blues can be caused by the following:

                        1. Poor knowledge of the topic you wish to write about.

                        2. Not being able to focus on a specific aspect of the subject you are         writing about (being to broad and general).

                        3.  Having an unclear understanding of what you want to write about exactly.

II.  How can the Problem be Remedied? 

            -It is helpful to know the definition of a thesis, so: A thesis statement is a specific declaration that summarizes (an argument really) the point of view you will express in your paper. It is the basic stand you take, the opinion you express, and the point you make about your narrowed subject. It’s your controlling idea, tying together and giving direction to all other elements in your paper. Your primary purpose is to persuade the reader that your thesis is a valid one.

            - Here are some steps you can take to build a solid thesis and make it clearer:

                        1. Your thesis should be specific.  If the ideas you present are general and numerous, chances are your reader will not be able to understand your point. A good thesis statement supplies a specific subject and a clear direction for your paper.

                        2.  Your thesis should be restrictive.  Think of your thesis subject as a single chocolate chip inside a cookie.  Your job as a writer is not to discuss all the issues in your subject, only a very small bit of it.  Try to limit yourself to only discussing one or two issues in an essay, or you will get lost in the information, as will your reader.

                        3.  Your thesis should be unified and express one major idea or purpose.  Do not try and cover every aspect of your subject, EVER! When you try and do this your paper becomes muddy and you, as well as your reader, will not be able to pick out the argument you are trying to make through your paper.

                        4.  Do not think of your thesis as:

                                    ~A promise or statement of purpose.

                                    ~A topic or subject by itself.

                                    ~A question

                        5. Your thesis statement should be arguable in both your favor, as well as in the favor of an opposing opinion.  Every sub point you put into your paper should somehow confirm your thesis, show the opposing argument (without weakening your own) and relate back to your thesis statement in some way.

 —–Overall, just remember to try and stay focused when you are developing your thesis statement.  Focus on issues that are important to you and that you are interested in writing about.  When you get lost, try and brainstorm or just get away from your paper for a while and come back when you are ready to focus again… Basically… just K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid).:)——– For extra help try these websites (my sources): 

            http://theliterarylink.com/thesis.html

            http://ozline.com/electraguide/thesis.html

            http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/thesis_statement.shtml

            http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Thesis.html

            Also, use the writing center on campus, its an amazing tool available to us!!!!

Transitions

Transitions within Paragraphs1. Define the issue            Transitions are words or phrase that alert your reader about what you are going to         state next. They are basically red flags that say “hey, this is what I’m saying now,      but I’m going to show you an acception later” or “I’m going to go ahead and            prove my point by giving you more supporting details”. (handouts and links)            Transitions are what hold your paper together and they provide unity and flow   within your papers.- Why is it problematic?            Transitions are problematic because many people are not using them correctly, or          more often, are not using them at all.- What does it look like (give example)? - Why does it happen?            It happens to most people because people often write exactly what they are       thinking; however, we all know from experience that what we are thinking tends        to jump around from idea to idea. In the end, we get all of our ideas on paper, and        it may make sense to us(the writer), but it certainly will not make sense to anyone           else reading it.             “How can you tell whether you need to work on your transitions? Here are some           possible clues:

·         Your instructor has written comments like “choppy,” “jumpy,” “abrupt,” “flow,” “need signposts,” or “how is this related?” on your papers.

·         Your readers (instructors, friends, or classmates) tell you that they had trouble following your organization or train of thought.

·         You tend to write the way you think—and your brain often jumps from one idea to another pretty quickly.

·         You wrote your paper in several discrete “chunks” and then pasted them together.

·         You are working on a group paper; the draft you are working on was created by pasting pieces of several people’s writing together.” (Handouts and links)

·         Someone tells you that you are a shot-gun writer!!!

- Why does it need to be improved?            The problem needs to be improved  because as a writer you may have many good         ideas, but if they are not organized correctly and connected with tranistions it will            be hard to get your point across to the reader. 2. How can it be remedied/improved?            It can be improved by using the “Unity & Flow Writing” worksheet. It can also be         imporved by carefully reading papers (backwards forward) to make sure that the        paper has a nice flow to it. Reading your paper with someone else’s mindset.            Making sure your paper is organized correctly because transitions won’t help a poorly organized paper.- What does it look like after being fixed?3. Detail a plan of action to remedy this issue.            USE THE WORKSHEET TO HELP YOU CONNECT YOUR IDEAS AND            SENTENES!!!    Works Cited

Handouts and links. The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 26            February 2008. <http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/transitions.html>. 

 Transitional Devices.  20 August 2006. The Owl at Purdue. 26 February 2008. <             http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/574/02/>. 

Cheryl Moen. Unity & Flow in Writing Worksheet. 

Unity & Flow in Writing To Show Time Relationship                    first                 later            second            during             third                earlier                         next                 at the moment            now                        soon                            last                  afterwards            finally             currently   To Show Additional Ideas                    also                 second                        besides           as well                        too                  in addition            moreover        furthermore   equally important         To Show Examples                    for instance    that is                          for example    namely                        in particular    also            specifically       To Show Comparison or Contrast

           

            however          nevertheless               unlike              yet                               likewise          on the contrary            similarly         in contrast                  instead            by comparison

            yet                   in like manner

            on the other hand

  To Show Cause and Effect                        thus                 so                                then                 because of      therefore        on account of             as a result  consequently              hence              accordingly                  To Show Emphasis

           

            indeed             in other words            in fact             even                especially       truly                            of course surprisingly    undeniably         Connectives Within a Paragraph

           

            Another factor . . .                             But . . .                                                This also applies . . .            Accordingly,. . .                                 Consequently, . . .             Finally, . . .             However, . . .              Such . . . 

            Thus, . . .                    

   To Summarize or Conclude

           

            finally             in brief                        in conclusion on the whole              to conclude    to summarize             in sum             in summary     

Freedom

 Michael Chopp

Ariana Paliobagis

ENG 121

2/25/08 

Sometimes to have a government or leader put in place to lead a country, something must be given up. Freedom is something we give up to obtain the other freedoms we want to have.

Equality can be hard to come by in some countries. Until the early 1900’s, women weren’t allowed to vote and even further back in history, blacks weren’t given citizenship. Nowadays things are different and everyone is equal when it comes to voting and for the most part, landing a job. In Bolivar’s writings, he talks about the Venezuelan constitution and its political equality. This is essential for a country so the right person is put into office to rule. Without this freedom, a ruler could be choosen by the likes of appearance (Talked about in ”Agganna Sutta”) instead of for his/her character or skill set. 

Safety and protection are certain reasons for giving up part if not all one’s freedom. An example is from the “Agganna Sutta”. In this reading, the first social contract was formed, in how “an agreement between a ruler and a group of people in which the people agree to give allegiance to the ruler and the ruler agrees to provide certain services to the people.” To me, it is stating that the people are giving up certain rights in order to gain those “services” from the ruler, which would probably include protection and some sort of well being. In our government today, we have freedom of speech, choice, equality, but however still have some restrictions to our freedoms such as laws. These are set in place by the government to protect us and keep us from abusing our freedom.

Freedom and security

Mack Holter

I think that the only time people should give up freedom is when they get something in exchange that they need and cannot provide for themselves.  In 1 Samuel of the Hebrew Bible, the people make a request for a king to lead them and to specifically go and fight their battles for them.  Thus, one of the biggest things that people sacrifice their freedom for is the assurance that they have some protection.  This typically applies in a general sense, such as security for the nation.  A person is capable of providing security for themselves in a small sense, because all they need is a gun.  However, if they want protection from other nations, this is where the leader comes into play.  It would be pointless for him to try and protect each citizen in each part of his kingdom, but in regards to the overall safety from other nations, this is where he shines.

            Obviously this is beneficial for the people, but why would they give up that freedom in the first place.  It is required that the amount of freedom that is given up is less in comparison to the amount of safety or whatever they receive.  If they lose more freedom than is worth what they would gain, then most people will oppose that law that removes that freedom.  There are laws that people see all the time and every time they see one, they take the time to weigh out each side.  If the bill provides some necessary or desired effect and removes only a small part of freedom, they will support it.  However, if they do not place a high enough value on the gain, then the loss of freedom supersedes the importance of the bill and they will oppose it.  In regards to the majority, whichever side of the bill has the largest number of supporters and voters will win, deciding if the bill is in the best interests of the majority.

Personal Responsibility

 

            People like being told what to do. Aung San Suu Kyi says it is easier for a ruler to ignore the needs of the weak than to respond to their needs. Is it not also easier for a society to escape the responsibility of making a decision and accepting their influence on the repercussions by electing a leader? This leads to tyranny, and is how these tyrants acquire so much power. They relieve their subjects of freedom in return for services such as security or education. Simon Bolivar is correct in his statement that “people rather than governments repeatedly drag tyranny in their train”. People encourage tyranny with their lack of motivation to do what is necessary to sustain a moral system of government.

            Is this dilemma a conscious decision or a flaw in human nature? In the book The Kite Runner there is a character who openly accepts his status in society even though he is oppressed without the right to an education because he was born a Hazra versus being born a Shi’ ai like his masters. What is more intriguing about this character is his happiness. Solely his role is to serve his masters whom he does not receive a just amount of respect for doing. There seems to be comfort in always knowing what your purpose is and this character seemed to enjoy sacrificing his freedoms in order to display his loyalty.

Do Whom Goes the Spoils

         People don’t choose to give up their freedoms. Whatever century a person might be from, if asked to give up what they consider as freedom.  They would look at you quizzically and ask in their dialog, for what?  Now you would either make them an offer, or bash them in the kneecaps and physically take their freedoms from them.  Both instances have happened and are still happening today.  In the texts Agganna Sutta by Siddhartha Guatama the Buddah and Quest for demorcracy by Aung San Suu Kyi, we can discover examples of both situations and a factor or two about why they happen and the effects that arise.

          In the case of the Buddahist village that Gautama described “…if we were to select a certain being…who should censure that which should rightly be censured, and should banish him who deserves to be banished?  But we will give to him in return a proportion of the rice”(102).   The village is willingly accepting a “certain being” to have power, to discipline and enforce punishment upon whomever he sees fit.  Giving this “being” the ability to effect their lives and paying him/her for the service with the rice.  This kind of trade is benefical to both parties and is a good thing, as long as the agreement is not altered to favor one side or the other.

       Sometimes things are not as symbiotic as the Buddahist villages arrangement.  When freedoms are taken forcefully; it makes the people unhappy, they struggle to live and do not prosper.  Kyi tells us “There is nothing new in Third World governments seeking to justify and perpetuate authoritarian rule by denouncing liberal democratic principles as alien.  By implication they claim for themselves the official and sole right to decide what does and does not conform to indigenous and cultural norms”(191).  The government is doing onto the Burmese that which is unjust, for the sole benefit of an authoritarian government.  By taking the basic freedom of decision away, the Burmese government is telling their people that they do not care to hear what they desire, or what is needed to be happy and healthy, two other basic rights that are do unto anyone.  The want for control and power is evident in the way this government rules and it is stripping the people of the freedoms that they desire and deserve.

        Freedoms mean something different to everyone, but there is a certain consensus as to the rights and freedoms that people deserve (without bias).  While making oneself happy is entirely up to that person, there are situations that exist that enable a person or groups of people to be happy.  If we as humans lived by the credo; if it hurts others than do not do it, there would be no worry about the sufferings that are going on in Burma.

Post 5/response 3

Mary Alice Dewees

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

02/25/2008

Giving up Freedom, We are all doing it!

Looking back as early as the 5^th century B.C.E. societies have felt the need for social contract. People wanted basic sets of rules to follow in order to live life in harmony with one another. To what extent does this play in one’s own freedom; are not people in a sense giving up personal rights in order to achieve balance for the whole? In “Agganna Sutta”, it is the people who approach the king with the idea of forming a social contract. They wanted a leader, someone to provide services like protection and in return would pledge their allegiance to the ‘ruler’. So it seems, in small sense people were willing to give up part of their freedom in exchange for services. Even looking at our own social contract (United States) we can see that we are not truly free. Americans may think they are free to act and do as they please; but, we know laws must be followed, and if they are not punishment will ensue.

Simon Bolivar also makes an interesting point concerning freedom he writes, “Nature, in truth, endows us at birth with the instinctive desire for freedom; but, be it laziness or some tendency inherent in humanity, it is obvious that mankind rests unconcerned and accepts things as they are, even though it is bound forcibly in fetters.”(150) I agree that laziness may play a part in one’s willingness to accept life as it is, but also many may see nothing wrong with society they live in. The idea of “why fix something that isn’t broke”.

I took an anthropology class a couple of years ago that discussed the topic of freedom, except we researched how ‘free’ people actually were. My conclusion is that there is no such thing as true freedom. I believe people are willing to give up some personal freedom in order to achieve a more balance, moral society. Living in a society where everyone did as they pleased would be utter chaos. Imagine a world were people could murder or steal without any punishment?

Freedom

Mike Dvorak

Professor Paliobagis

Writing 121

2/25/08

Response 3

 

Government is a trade.  We trade some of our freedom for the security that can be provided if we all fit ourselves into one form of right and wrong.  The amount of freedom given up is measured in the amount of taxes we pay or the things we are not allowed to do.  I think it is important, especially now that we have an already established government that we fight to keep the balance of this trade equal.  As the government gains power, takes your freedoms, it continues to try and grow, constantly expanding what it believes it should or can decide for you.  Things like the fall of Habeas Corpus are signs that warn of such power grabs.  Once a government has taken a right from you it becomes very difficult to gain them back without some form of conflict.  This is why I think our democracy, while slow to make these changes, is a good system because it allows us to regain some of our freedoms without brings the conflict to a physical head, a war or coup of some kind.

Giving up freedom

Chelsey Colbert

Response 3

 

            Why might people choose to give up their freedom is a tough question to answer, but after reading some of the text in class I think that there is more than one answer. I think the three dominant reasons are because people want something in return of their freedom, like security, or they are uneducated or just plain lazy.

            When a group of people are far more frightened by something other than lack of freedom, they may choose to give up their freedom in order to feel secure about their other problem. I think the sense of security is one of the main reasons people choose to give up their freedom. In times of war, or threat of war, people often say to their government “do what you want to do as long as we stay safe”; in this case, the people are completely giving up their freedom, a thing they had previously. In another situation, a group of people may give up their freedom completely, before they had it, to ensure that they will be protected. For example, in The Hebrew Bible, the Israelites, before they experiences freedom under a king, asked God for a king to rule their land because they were afraid of their own weakness (94).

            In Aung San Suu Kyi’s piece, she says that the opponents of the movement for democracy kept the people ignorant about other forms of government. She says that Burma is “distanced by several decades of isolationism from political and intellectual developments in the outside world” (191). She claims that democracy would follow the ancient teachings and beliefs of the Burma people but the current tyrannical government is keeping that information secret from the public. 

            The final reason, I believe, for why people choose to give up their freedom is because they are lazy; the people feel that they can not do anything about the way their situation is and it would be too much work, so they give up. I feel that Simón Bolívar was trying to make a point that the reason many people suffer under governments is because they are “deliberately kept in ignorance and cut off from the world in all matters relating to the science of government” (149); but at the same time he says that if they were not ignorant then they would still not be motivated to change because they are more comfortable with the norm as opposed to doing something about their situation.

Why Freedom Should Never Be Given Up

 

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

25^th of February 2008

People sometimes actively choose to give up their freedom in return for some kind of service, the most common of which would be security. I believe this trade to be a grave mistake. This quote of Ben Franklin hits the point well: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Freedom is more important than a little temporary security. The new-found security will not be very enjoyable without the freedom. Many people’s over the course of history have given up their freedom in return for protection by some entity. This entity usually represented a government or faction, that promised it’s people protection from some sort of threat. For this reason a lot of dictatorships have been created when the people were afraid of something, in particular defeat in war. In their defense a dictator often is able to better coordinate military operations than a group of people would be, because it is clear who has the final world. This prevents indecisiveness due to differing opinions on the appropriate course of action that should be taken. The Israelites were looking for protection from foreign forces when they elected Benjamin to become their leader (Samuel 94).

“Under the Constitution, which interprets the laws of Nature, all citizens of Venezuela enjoy complete political equality (Simon Bolivar 153).” These freedoms are crucial for the success of a country. By giving up these freedoms you are giving up on the your country. Our constitution is in place to protect our basic freedoms and there is never an acceptable reason to give up any of them. The whole reason of our government is to protect each citizen’s basic and unalienable rights. Every human being has a basic set of unalienable rights that stand at the base of all government. Government allows all of its members to better protect their individual rights and property.

My freedom stops where your begins. I believe that this should be the main concept behind government. Government should protect our property and individual rights. These basic forms of protection need to be enforced, but beyond that the government’s influence and control should be held to a minimum. I believe a laissez faire or hands off approach works better for society. The smaller the interference by the government the better society works. Governments often evolve to become bureaucratic and inefficient.

Our last chance…NOT!

Kurt Dudley

ENGL 121

February 23, 2008      

Leaders have been around since the beginning of civilization.  When you think back to all of the great cultures, from the Romans to the Mayans, you will find one thing in common with all of them, they all have a central government, and a central leader.  Granted every culture has its own type of leader, they all have one person that they look up to and follow.  There are many different kinds of leaders; it could be a President, an Emperor, a King, or even just a person who everyone respects but for some reason, people have the urge to follow someone who they believe to be wiser then themselves.  Why do you think we do this?  Do we do it because we are afraid to do things on our own?  Because we want someone to go to with our problems?  I think that all of these reasons are potential truths, because as human beings we always like to have someone we can rely on.  The only question is, as a human race, how do we tend to choose our leaders?

            As a human race, I feel that we tend to choose our leaders by how they act.  Most of the time when we look at a leader in any culture, we see that they are a very successful person who really has their life together.  They tend to be people who are good a speaking, and who make it very natural to have conversations.  Other times however, we see that leaders are very powerful people who use their ability to intimidate and get ahead in the world.  They are people who are good at interacting with others but they have immoral minds.  Fear can be a very successful tool when used in a person’s own favor.  It has the power to bend people in certain ways, and it has the power to change their natural inhibitions.  But as a whole, cultures seem to choose leaders who will be good for their cause.  You see this in today’s politics, people who vote issues are doing nothing more than trying to improve their own beliefs.  Which is why I think that people elect leaders simply because they know that they themselves cannot do things on their own, and having a person to back them up is never a bad Idea.

            When we choose our leaders, people are thinking of their beliefs.  Whether it is religion, or politics, people will always vote by the way they think things should be.  That’s why when we look for good candidates we look for someone who we see ourselves in.  At the core, every time that you vote, you are trying to put a person in office who will do the things that you think are right, which is why we elect leaders, to do the things that we cannot do as followers.          

Appearance plays a role….

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

2/25/08

Response 3

 

Why do people give up freedoms? The answer to the questions is the same as the answer to another question, being “Why do people give up anything?”  The answer to these questions is simple, the only reason people give anything up is to gain something in another area. Take one step backward to gain two steps forward. No one will ever intentionally give up anything without getting something out of it.  For example, our government makes certain laws that infringe on our freedom, but these laws allow us to function as a society. In the essay “In Quest for Democracy”, Aung San Suu Kyi states “The people of Burma have had much experience of despotic rule and possess a great awareness of the unhappy gap that can exist between the theory and practice of government” (193). This means to me that she is basically giving up some of her freedoms because she knows that everybody has to give a little to gain anything. If someone wants to live a civilized lifestyle, some freedoms are going to have to be taken away due to abusers.

In class, we discussed how a society should choose a leader or how a country should elect a president. We discussed whether or not looks should be important in electing a leader, if the basis of election should be solely on ideas and not on appearance. Most people in the class agreed that it should have nothing to do with looks and only on ideas, but I completely disagree. I think appearance plays a huge role in electing a leader and should rightfully so. In the Agganna Sutta, the way that they chose a leader was “who was the handsomest, the best favored, the most attractive, and the most capable” (Aggana Sutta 102). This may seem initially incorrect to the ignorant, but if one was to further analyze and think about why they choose leaders in this fashion, they would see that this is a proper way to do so. One argument we discussed was that if a bum had good ideas and values, but was still a bum, should this person be elected president?  Most people answered yes, but I answered no. I think that if a person is a bum, then obviously this person can’t control his/her life so what makes someone think that this person can control a country. Somebody’s rebuttal was that “some people choose that kind of lifestyle and choose to live like a bum.” My response to this was “obviously if a person is choosing to live the lifestyle of a rancid, haggard bum; then obviously there is something wrong with this individual. There is something not quite right in the head of this person, so why would you want someone like that running a country? The point is that believe it or not, looks plays a huge role in electing a leader and rightfully so. Dressing well shows character and devotion.

 

 

 

Compromising Freedom for Security

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121

Response Paper 3

February 25, 2008

Giving up freedom for any reason sounds crazy but it definitely happens.  Why?  From reading the texts I have decided that freedom is compromised for security and an overall feeling of stability.

To me, giving up freedom means allowing someone else to rule your life and decide what is best for you.  Just as the Israelites gave up some of their freedom to have a king, we also give up part of our freedom for government.  Why do we do this?  I’d say mainly for security.  We select leaders and agree to follow their rules/guidelines—but in return we expect them to provide us with protection.  This is exactly how is was for the Brahmins in Agganna Sutta.  They compromised some of their freedom and selected a king who would in return “be indignant at that whereat one should rightly be indignant, censure that which should rightly be censured, and banish him who deserves to be banished” (The Agganna Sutta 102).

Life is about giving and taking, so giving up some rights in order to obtain others is only natural.  Think about it, any healthy relationship requires some sort of compromising—ones with parents, teachers, bosses and even law enforcement.  They all take giving up some right in exchange for another.  For example, we give up our right to speed in our cars, to drink underage, to use illegal substances in return for protection.  Some people aren’t willing to give up these types of behaviors (ones that they claim they should be free to do)—but most people are willing to follow the rules in exchange for the protection of some of their other rights.

It may not be easy to compromise freedom for something else—such as security, organization, stability etc—but it is essential.  As long as this “compromising” doesn’t become unbalanced, with one side gaining or losing more than the other, then I think it works out best for both sides (or the best that it possibly can for having to compromise a bit of freedom).

Quest for Democracy

Ryan Haidle

English 121

Ariana Paliobagis

 

Response 3

 

            In the writings by Aung San Suu Kyi and Simon Bolivar, they both addressed different issues when it came to government and leading.  Bolivar addressed the problems with the Constitution of Venezuela and Aung San Suu Kyi wrote what he thought were essential characteristics of a good leader.

            In Bolivar’s writing he stated why he thought the U.S. Constitution was not a good model for Venezuela’s.  Bolivar states, “Would it not be most difficult to apply to Spain the English system of political, civil, and religious liberty?”(Bolivar 152)  I think that Bolivar felt that the U.S. Constitution was good for the U.S. but it needed more changes before it could be used in Venezuela because of the different political, civil and religious views. 

            In Kyi’s writing she wanted to get the point across that it was important for countries to be on a “quest for democracy.”  She examined the role of government in Buddhist scriptures.  In her writing she described ten duties that a Buddhist leader must have had in order to be accepted.  “The duties are: liberality, morality, self-sacrifice, integrity, kindness, austerity, non-anger, non-violence, forbearance, and non-opposition (to the will of the people). (Kyi 194)  I found these characteristics to be very similar to what is still required in today’s society.  In a leadership class that I took last semester, the essential qualities of a leader were almost identical to these.  It takes a special person to be able to have all of these traits.  It is nearly impossible to succeed at all of them.  You just have to stick to the ones that are most important to you and abide by them no matter what situations come at you.

Giving Up Freedom

Carley ButtelmanEnglish 121Mrs P2-24-08Giving up Freedom            Why would someone want to give up their own freedom? From the texts we read I feel that there are numerous reasons why people would give up their own freedom.For example in the “Quest of Democracy,” Aung San Suu Kyi gave up her freedom because she believed so strongly about her beliefs. Her freedom was taken away because she was a very strong advocate on spreading democracy in her country. Aung San Suu Kyi was trying to help the people of Burma understand what democracy meant and how important individual freedom is. I feel that people in countries that have never had individual freedoms have a tough time understanding how democracy works. They believe that their lives need to be run by rulers or leaders. Aung San Suu Kyi was just trying to help her people understand that life can be better and that they can have freedom. However, in doing this she lost her rights. I completely admire what she did.             In the Agganna Sutta, there was an agreement between a ruler and a group or people in which the people agree to give allegiance to the ruler and the ruler agrees to provide certain services to people (pg 100). Sometimes people can’t do things on their own and they feel that a ruler would be the best way to solve their problems. In the beginning summary it says “the Budda talks specifically about the origin of kings, who, he insists, were not placed in power by divine decree, but were elected to their position by people who were willing to give up some of their sustenance for the civil protection offered by a ruler (pg 100) The people in Agganna Sutta feel that their freedoms needed to be controlled by a ruler. It seems to me that they feel safer with a ruler than having a democracy as a government. So, I guess there are numerous reason why someone would give up their freedom, but it definitely depends on how a person was raised and where, their beliefs on democracy, and what’s important enough to them to give up their freedom.

Why give em’ up?

Keely Boulton

ENGL 121.31

Response 3

February 25, 2008

Why do people give up certain freedoms to be governed by a ruler? Is it because they believe they cannot do everything on their own? Or could it be that they do it in order to keep certain rights for themselves? According to the few texts read in class so far, I think people give up certain freedoms both because they would be lost without organized government and because they want protection. People all over the world need some type of ruler, be it king or president, so they always have someone to go to, someone to lead them.

As 1 Samuel 8:19-20 says, “But we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles” (96). From this text we find that a king is useful for judging the crimes of those who have done wrong and he can fight the battles for his people. If Americans did not have a justice system or a president who makes fair judgments for those who have done wrong, the whole nation would be in chaos. Although people should have some inalienable rights, I do not think people could run a whole country without a government. I believe the Israelites wanted to have a king, even though that meant giving up certain rights, for these reasons.

People will also give up certain freedoms to be protected. A ruler can serve as a safety valve for his people giving them the protection they cannot provide for themselves. Aung San Suu Kyi argues, “Self-sacrifice [is] the ultimate generosity which gives up all for the sake of the people” (194). From history one can see that the main purpose of the king himself, is to fight on his people’s behalf and to be self-sacrificial in anything that involves the safety of his people. I believe people look up to their ruler more than anyone to protect them in times of trouble.

Freedom Isn’t Free

Chris Kurz
ENG 121 Response 3 Post
February 24, 2008

Freedom is everything. Songs and books are written about freedom. Lives are changed because of the pursuit of freedom. Countries go to war over the right to freedom. So why would anyone want to give up their freedom?
A lyric from a song by the creators of the television show “South Park” states that “Freedom isn’t free.” While the writers of the song may not have had any underlying meaning to their song, the statement holds a lot of weight. Freedom is not free. Not just in price, but in the sacrifices that must be made to keep freedom alive.
There are many different ways to describe freedom around the world. It is a theme that is equated with democracy in our country, but that can be tied to many other political and religious views. The idea of freedom has been around as long as man.
In the essay “In Quest for Democracy”, Aung San Suu Kyi gives up her freedom on many occasions. In giving up her freedom she hopes to gain more freedom for the people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi felt that the government of her country was stealing her freedom and the only way to stop them was by sacrificing her own freedom. She backed up her stance in her writing by saying, “The people of Burma have had much experience of despotic rule and possess a great awareness of the unhappy gap that can exist between the theory and practice of government” (193). Because she felt so strongly about the plight of her country she went to jail many times in hopes of bettering the situation of the people in Burma.
A similar story was echoed in the essay by Simon Bolivar. Venezuela had to fight for its independence from Spain. By asserting their independence, Venezuelans were gaining freedom. Bolivar agreed with this in saying that, “She has declared for the rights of man and freedom of action, thought, speech, and press” (151). Many Venezuelans gave up their rights and freedoms because they wanted their independence. It sounds like juxtaposition but that is the way it works sometimes. Self-sacrifice can lead to freedoms that are immeasurable.

Knowing your Leader

 Samantha Kujala

Response #3 ENGL 121

2/22/08

         At first, when I read Agganna Sutta, I thought the way the people chose what they wanted in a leader was silly and scary. In the text it was said that the people wanted someone, “who was the handsomest, the best favoured, the most attractive, and the most capable” (Agganna Sutta 102).             

        This quote makes it sound like they would choose someone to govern them by how good the person looks. Though, I think they do look for more than that in their government. Because they say they are looking for the most capable person. To me someone who is capable means that they can handle the job, know how to get things done, and keep the community organized; it is someone who has their life in control. They may also be looking for someone who does have a good appearance to them. If my boss came to work everyday looking like she just rolled out of bed and did not care about her job, I would have no respect for her or want to work for her. So, in some aspects the way Agganna Sutta describes the type of leader they are looking for does make sense.            

            Although, the people still did not even know the person they were really hiring for the job. A person can be deceiving and be someone totally different from what you thought. What would have happened, in Agganna Sutta, if the person they hired decided he did not want to work and was very lazy? Once you give someone such authority how easy is it to take them out of that place? Would they have been able to fire him at any time they pleased?            

          In choosing a leader, you need to be able to know them. Some things I would look for in a leader would be honesty. I would not want my leader lying to me saying they caught the thief, and then find the same thief a week later stealing from me. I also strongly feel a leader has to be very organized in order to take responsibility for a group of people. Being lazy and unorganized can lead to procrastination; then the job might not get done until it is too late.

Comment on Chris Kurz’s Freedom of Education

After reading Freire’s and Douglass’s pieces I thought that they would have had a lot to agree on; and after reading Chris’s paper, I can see that he thought the same. However, he brought up a point that I never thought about. He says in his response to Douglass and Freire that “Freire saw the established communication between a teacher and a student as being much like that of the oppressive association between master and slave.” I think this was just a great connection between the two pieces and I first I didn’t agree with what he said but after taking a closer look I can see the connection. The only difference I would say that they shared was that Freire seemed to believe that all teachers were essentially evil. While Douglass believed that people were good but turned evil under the pressure of society; like his mistress would teach him until she was told not to. So my response is just to point out that the view is a good connection and I thought it was very clever.  

Response to Henry Robertson (Douglass and Freire)

In Henry Robertson’s post about Frederick Douglass and Paulo Freire, he talks about how much of the emphasis in learning falls on the student. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Henry mentioned that students must, “learn on their own” at some point in their education. This is a very good point. The teachers can only impart their knowledge to you. It is the student who must make the decision to embrace the material and learn from what the class curriculum offers.

The self-motivation that goes into learning is paramount to the education of people as a whole. Just about anyone can get by in school and leave with a degree; however to truly become educated knowledge beyond the classroom is what must be the overall goal. When one is able to see the joy in learning something new or have the desire to approach a new subject just for opportunity to learn, then learning has begun. Usually the effort you put into something goes hand in hand with the level of motivation you have towards the subject.

Response to Carley Buttelman’s Post, “Enjoying Learning”

Learning is everywhere. If it’s in class or through a life experience, it’s everywhere. However, I honeslty believe that if one enjoys what they are learning that they will be more motivated to aquire that knowledge. For instane, classes that interest someone always seems to be their favortive and always goes by faster than a class that they might not enjoy as much. I feel that enjoyment plays a huge role in motivating someone to learn. In elementary school, learning had to be enjoyable thats why games and prizes are always involved. Motivation is a huge key in the role of learning. If it’s learning a certain topic that interests a person, than I feel that motivation to continue to learn will be there as well.

I strongly agree that it is necessary to enjoy learning in order to stay motivated toward acquiring knowledge and to be successful in doing so. But what makes us interested in some subjects and not in others, and is it always the subject of the class or the manor in which it is taught? When young it is necessary to reward learning with prizes, but as we mature don’t we realize the benefit of being educated, is that not enough of a reward? A strong education seems to provide financial stability later in life, is this not an appealing goal to everyone, why do some need more than this to feel the need to expand upon their knowledge. How can education be made more enjoyable? Newman would say that a liberal knowledge would provide a more emotional, personal state of enjoyment whereas useful knowledge may provide financial enjoyment, but what comes of that?

Response to Carley Buttelman’s Post, “Enjoying Learning”

Learning is everywhere. If it’s in class or through a life experience, it’s everywhere. However, I honeslty believe that if one enjoys what they are learning that they will be more motivated to aquire that knowledge. For instane, classes that interest someone always seems to be their favortive and always goes by faster than a class that they might not enjoy as much. I feel that enjoyment plays a huge role in motivating someone to learn. In elementary school, learning had to be enjoyable thats why games and prizes are always involved. Motivation is a huge key in the role of learning. If it’s learning a certain topic that interests a person, than I feel that motivation to continue to learn will be there as well.

I strongly agree that it is necessary to enjoy learning in order to stay motivated toward acquiring knowledge and to be successful in doing so. But what makes us interested in some subjects and not in others, and is it always the subject of the class or the manor in which it is taught? When young it is necessary to reward learning with prizes, but as we mature don’t we realize the benefit of being educated, is that not enough of a reward? A strong education seems to provide financial stability later in life, is this not an appealing goal to everyone, why do some need more than this to feel the need to expand upon their knowledge. How can education be made more enjoyable? Newman would say that a liberal knowledge would provide a more emotional, personal state of enjoyment whereas useful knowledge may provide financial enjoyment, but what comes of that?

response to bethany8

The practical applications of knowledge are many. They basicly deal with the skills you need to survive in everyday life–how to work and get along in society. This practical application is both good and “useful”, but it ends as soon as it’s put to use. I agree with Newman that knowledge doesn’t need to serve any “useful” social purpose to be worth aquiring. Knowledge can be obtained from numerous sources and helps a person to become a self-thinking individual–one who seeks to think about and reflect back on all that life has to offer. This type of knowledge may not have a physical or useful application, but it benefits the individual intellectually. The knowledge continues on with the individual and is there for them to use for the rest of thier life. Even if knowledge isn’t directly applicable or “useful”, the individual still benefits from it-therefore it is worth aquiring.

    Bethany I agree with you that some practical applications of knowledge only serves the purpose to be recalled once.(i.e. remembering dates for a test) But would agree that there are situations is which people must be able to recall their ‘practical’ knowledge. For instance what about people who operate heavy machinery or perform open-heart surgeries? I think most people in general, and on a daily basis, must rely on the fact that they know and remember how things in our society work.

    The knowledge does not simply cease in its function, it only changes in how it is applied.

I also agree that the ‘liberal’ education that Newman speaks about is ‘useful’ because, like you stated, it is still serving a purpose in the life of the person. Why would people want to learn anything if it was not of some use to them? This key point is one I believe Newman fails to see. Personally, why should there be a difference between ‘practical’ or ‘liberal’ they are all important and they each serve important purpose in one’s life.

Response to Keely Boulton

I read Keely’s post after having talked to her in class.  I found that we both had similar views on Newman and what he thinks about knowledge.  As Keely says, Newman has a very distinct view on knowledge, he says we have Liberal knowledge and Useful knowledge.  As I mentioned in class I see no clear line separating the two types.  After all, any liberal knowledge that one person gains through their lifetime was at some point “useful” knowledge to someone.  If it is worth learning then clearly it was useful and that is why I think that liberal knowledge and useful knowledge are without a doubt dependent on each other.  Thanks Keely!  Your post agreed with me!

 Kurt

Response to Samantha Kujala’s thoughts on Rousseau

   “I found some of Rousseau’s thoughts to be very bizarre, but in some ways I agree with them. For example, Rousseau thought the more educated you become, the more you become evil and we are all born good. Well, I don’t disagree that we are all born good, you’re a baby of course you’re good. Although, I don’t see how becoming educated makes us evil. Some things we learn in life are bad and can possibly impact us for the worse. But what about people who read the Bible, is learning from that making us evil? Also, was Rousseau judging herself, because her ideas were educated ideas and being able to write requires learning? So is Rousseau admitting she is evil too? Rousseau also hinted toward the idea that people become successful by luck. “

I like your response, but I’m not so sure I agree that education itself makes a person evil (or that you thought this is what Rousseau was getting at).  An education may “open someone’s eyes” to reality–therefore exposing them to the not so good aspects of society.  But a person needs to be exposed to the “real world”  in order to learn to deal with life.  If anything, I think an education can help a person cope better with the twists and turns of life because it is through an education that a person becomes truely independent and self-thinking.  I guess I just feel you maybe interpreted Rousseau’s thoughts in a different way.  What I thought Rousseau was saying is that people are naturally good–but at the same time they must be careful to avoid the negative apects of life (ones which are presented to us by society).  One such example would be becoming self-interested.  Even though this doesn’t seem like much of a crime, it is a result of being influenced by society.  These day,  a lot of people are just concerned about their own lives and success.   They will step on other people and go to extreme measures just to get ahead.  I feel Rousseau would say this is a direct result of a person moving away from nature and allowing the negative influences of life move in.  A person is naturally caring and good–so they must obtain an eduation (one as close to nature as possible) in order to preserve that natural goodness within.

Peer Response to Samantha Kujala on Rousseau

 

“I found some of Rousseau’s thoughts to be very bizarre, but in some ways I agree with them. For example, Rousseau thought the more educated you become, the more you become evil and we are all born good. Well, I don’t disagree that we are all born good, you’re a baby of course you’re good. Although, I don’t see how becoming educated makes us evil. Some things we learn in life are bad and can possibly impact us for the worse. But what about people who read the Bible, is learning from that making us evil? Also, was Rousseau judging herself, because her ideas were educated ideas and being able to write requires learning? So is Rousseau admitting she is evil too? Rousseau also hinted toward the idea that people become successful by luck. Some people may be lucky by having someone they know be able to help them out and make them successful, but I totally disagree that people are successful by luck. At least in today’s world, if you really want to be successful you have to work hard at it. Say you’re trying to get a job, today you have to have a good resume to show experience, qualifications, and you have to have interviews so they can get to know you. I don’t believe life happens by luck, you have to work hard to get what you want, maybe not hundreds of years ago but today you do. With the reading from Hsun Tzu, I thought it made more sense and I liked the metaphors used to make you understand him. I do think it shows a lot about a person who gives up and drops out of high school. A person who is just lazy and doesn’t care about the education they could have, I agree with Hsun Tzu about, I don’t think they can ever really call themselves a man or woman.  But I don’t think that is totally true either and I kind of have a theory of my own. This is, when you do stop reading from texts and you’re not pushing to learn something new, you still do learn something new everyday, without even knowing it sometimes. Life is full of questions and answers.”

I disagree with a few fundamental statements made in this response. First, Rousseau never argued to that becoming educated results in becoming evil. Rousseau believed that humans have an innate goodness about them. He believed that society and government corrupted people’s innate nobility (Rousseau, 479). In his view education could serve as a barrier against the corrupting forces that are all around us. So, in effect he is arguing the exact opposite of your statement. He sees education as a tool to promote the goodness in people. Hsün Tzu and Rousseau have the same opinion on this fact, they both believe that education can make you a better human being. Therefore Rousseau never believed that he was evil himself. It is more likely that he believed himself to be rather good due to his extensive personal education.

I agree with you that hard work and determination are key to being successful. But I believe that luck plays a substantial factor in our lives as well. I am going to use your example from above about, somebody trying to get a job, to illustrate my argument. Sometimes you have to rely on luck to give you the edge over someone else that is applying for a job. For example becoming hired might just be dependent on your recruiters mood during your interview. There are many examples were luck plays an issue. A lot of wealth built in this country is a direct result of luck. Foreseeing a trend can make you rich in a heartbeat, but being able to foresee that trend may just depend on how lucky you are. Luck can not truly be categorized, but it exists and everybody knows what it stands for. It is debatable how much of an effect luck has on our lives, but it is undeniable that there are effects that result from it.

Repsonse to Mack Holter’s Post on Newman

Ryan Haidle

English 121

Ariana Paliobagis

 

Response to Mack Holter’s Newman Post

Mack’s response

Enjoyment plays a large role because Newman states that knowledge in itself should be reason enough to acquire it.  Thus, if that knowledge has some extent of enjoyment to it, then one would want to pursue it even more.  From my point of view, the type of knowledge that Newman advocates we pursue is that of book smarts.  I do not think that there is as much an application for book smarts as there are for street smarts, unless you are a philosopher or such.  With that stated, I do enjoy learning for its own sake, because it is cool and fun to know lots of information.  I think that learning for its own sake much outweighs its use value.  Over the years, I have learned tons of things, including many cool facts.  However, I will not typically use any of that knowledge that came from book smarts, unless I need to recall a specific fact.  Yet, I greatly enjoy having all that information bouncing around in my head, and that is why I agree with Newman, on the fact that enjoyment plays a large role in the motivation to acquire knowledge.

 

My Response

I think I would have to disagree with your statement saying that Newman advocates us to pursue an education of book smarts.  I think what Newman was trying to say was “liberal” knowledge and “useful” knowledge each having their own significant importance.  Both types of knowledge rely on each other.  I think that if you were to focus on just one type of knowledge, you tend to miss out on a lot of things.  Some examples of this would be, if you are completely book smart and have no street smarts, you will struggle to live in today’s modern society.  It is necessary to have a balanced approach to education.  At times, you must be able to think “outside the box” and at other times it is necessary to know the facts and apply them by using knowledge you acquired from the books.

I do agree with a lot of this response though.  I feel that Enjoyment plays a very significant role in education.  If you don’t enjoy what you’re learning, it makes it extremely difficult to learn and comprehend knowledge.  

Response to Carley Buttelman (Newman)

 Benjamin Burns

Peer Response

“In Newman’s opinion, what role does enjoyment play in the motivation to acquire knowledge? In your opinion, is learning most enjoyable for its own sake or for its use value.

Learning is everywhere. If it’s in class or through a life experience, it’s everywhere. However, I honeslty believe that if one enjoys what they are learning that they will be more motivated to aquire that knowledge. For instane, classes that interest someone always seems to be their favortive and always goes by faster than a class that they might not enjoy as much. I feel that enjoyment plays a huge role in motivating someone to learn. In elementary school, learning had to be enjoyable thats why games and prizes are always involved. Motivation is a huge key in the role of learning. If it’s learning a certain topic that interests a person, than I feel that motivation to continue to learn will be there as well.”

If you were to think about it, everything that we do in life we do to get some sort of reward from it. No matter what we do, we do to benefit ourselves, whether it be learning, fishing, skiing, or any type of sports. The thing about people is that when we are children, we didn’t see the big picture and sometimes didn’t realize why we were doing some things and what the “real” rewards were for doing them. So to fix this problem, adults had to “motivate” us with “fake” rewards. Whether this be with treats or extra play time or something. What this did was keep us going and doing what we were doing so we could get the next treat. When we were very little we would get some sort of reward or treat after every correct answer, or after we did something right, but as we matured we no longer needed a reward after every correct answer or after every good thing we did. This space in motivation is due to the maturation of people and the greatened understanding of why we are doing the things that we are doing. The need for motivation is always present in all aspects of education, its just the “simple” aspect of it that dies along with immaturity. In your post, you don’t really answer the second part of the question. It asked you whether you find education enjoyable for its own sake for for its value. I believe that learning is most enjoyable for its value in life because during this point in our lives, education itself has become our motivation and our reward.