In the essay, “In Defense of Prejudice”, by Jonathan Rauch, he defines the position opposite to his own as “purism”. He states that the public does not know enough about the term and it has yet to be properly identified. Rauch states that “purism” cannot be justified without the traces of prejudice to be completely removed from society, but that prejudice will never be removed from society due to continuous perceptions that people have. Throughout the essay Rauch defines purism, and it can be attained that the public does not know what pluralism is, what it means to be politically correct, and what society really is without constant prejudice. In this essay, those concepts will be explored with Rauch’s position on them, and what he believes.
Before reading this article, I thought that while we slept our brain simply in a “resting” stage. I was certain that during this period of “rest”, our brain was preparing for another day to process information and I thought to myself that it is why we always hear people say that we need more than six hours of sleep. It made total sense. What I did not know was that our brain is one hundred percent active during sleep and, more than that, it processes the information in a complex way that allows us to find immediate solutions the next day. It pretty much sounds like our brain is constantly working every day of our lives.
The problem in the school structure that Graff recognizes is lack of persuasion to get students to argue. This holds true in my personal experiences in academics. Despite the fact the educating administration is trying to avoid violent disputes because of arguments, they fail to see that properly structured arguments are the best way to avoid violence. Without the school system instilling the ideas and values of argument, students will lack an outlet for an argument consisting of words and are more likely to resort to violence for resolution. In a section of Gerald’s essay he advocates that educated conversation be shared with uneducated audiences as a basis for understanding any scholarly topic as well as a basis for a strong argument.
My judgments are my own and it’s unique. I can’t predict when it happens and when to shut it down, just like my heart beats. I thought this way because whenever I am are faced with someone or something new, I don’t necessarily think over my thoughts to see if it’s reasonable or if I should not think these thoughts. I was questioning how Gladwell will be able to educate and teach someone to control their judgments and first impressions because everyone is different and their thoughts are of course not the same. However, I do understand how learning to control my snap judgments and first impressions is important because it gives people a second chance to prove who they are but everyone is entitled to their own judgment and not everyone has to agree with
In this particular case, Murray does a great job sharing personal experiences upon his argument of whether there should be more vocational schools and stop using a college degree as a requirement for jobs, but stands defenseless due to the omission of statistics where only one statistic stands to defend his position. In Anglesey’s article “How Can I Incorporate Evidence into My Paper” she states that “[one needs] the author’s expertise to solidify [their] claim” which Murray does not do successfully in his paper, which ultimately weakens the evidence Murray can provide to specify his opposition and argument. Moreover, the type of evidence Murray could have recognized to portray a logical standpoint would have been to include facts of pursing high educational degrees and comparing them to those individuals searching for jobs without an efficient education. Also, including data of how past and present years have on individuals with the qualifications of education end of pursing high paying jobs. Murray could have went in so many directions rather than just providing one fact and relying on the rest of his essay on personal
They would agree that writing can never be explained too much. William Zinsser, author of “On Writing Well”, would not agree with what Graff and Birkenstein. Zinsser says that writing well involves being clear and to the point, avoiding use of clutter and useless jargon. If these two writers were put together, and told to discuss the matter, they would both have many conflicting opinion. I definitely agree with some points made by both parties.
The second poem “Shine, Perishing Republic” by Robinson Jeffers mostly resembles my attitude towards America right now. I do believe that the government is trying to do anything possible to gain more power even if it means ruining or destroying the environment and society. I feel like the government pretends to actually care about our well-being but we're brainwashed to actually think that. I really don't understand how people can actually do whatever it is they want to do even if it isn't right just to make themselves happy and to have a good time. This era is actually really messed up, it seems like there isn't any structure with our society that everyone is just going with the flow of what's “in”.
While Carr’s arguments lead to the viable point that technology is now so deeply riveted into the fabric of our lives that we have lost control over its influence on us, he is not the first to be concerned. According to Carr, Socrates thought very little of the advancement of writing due to the fact that it would force society to forfeit the use of their memory because of the abundance of written material that would then be available. He also believed that people would, without receiving knowledge from credible sources, rely alone on their own interpretation of information and in turn become ignorant. Carr sees Socrates’ way of thinking as “short-sighted,” even though his argument in relationship to the internet mirrors that of Socrates’. Google has “[served] to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge” today in the same way that the development of writing expanded the mind of an individual in the first century (Carr 8).
When starting with others say you should except that other may not care for what you say causing controversy. It doesn’t always have to start out with a disagreement, but using other resources to start out a paper is always useful because later in the text the reader gets to see if you dis/agree with what others say. Once you have used what others have said be sure to continue it later through out the text. It reminds the reader what you are talking about and it allows you to keep track of not getting off the main subject. If you start jumping around in the text the reader won’t be able to follow along.
Both of these men invite controversy in what they say, but confidently support the points they are trying to get across. After not only reading, but understanding the writing of each of them, it is more clear that a historian and a cartographer are not necessarily liars or fakes, but they also do not get every exact detail down because that would be a replica rather than a representation, which would be impossible to have considering they are completely inaccessible. For them, it is about selectivity and persuasion. They each must choose what they feel is most relevant and important, and persuade their viewers to believe it and agree. That is what makes a great historian and cartographer; not getting all of them, but getting the right facts, details, and features down for their proposed