By creating an account, you agree to our terms of service.
Show previous comments
Please enter between 0 and 2000 characters.
What do you think about this?
Today, the world is full of people whose behavior is determined by some aim.
[Except for the people who are aimless, arguably, or whose aims are not objectively identifiable.]
This situation has to make us reflect about the causes which determine those aims. As we know, [Stop. Do not write of yourself as a plurality, or a mulitude of people. You are one person. So use "I" unless you represent an organization of collect of persons in specific.]
"our society" [Whose Society? Which Society? Do not write in generalizations, please!]
"has steadily been evolving and today’s reality is more different than reality of thirty years ago." [Such conclusions require evidences, and without specific facts to support your conclusion, this is merely a generalization.]
This deep change [What deep change?]
"has been leading us [Us Who? Again, do not write of yourself as a plurality.
If you are writing propaganda for some government, this would suffice very well; but if you are engaged in an objective composition, avoid such Bandwagon Fallacies.] to change also the values at the base of this society." [What are the "Values---at---the---base--of---this---Society?
This kind of writing is generality in the extreme.]
At first despite each positive goal, [Positive Goals referst to a Metaphysical qualification, and is not at all consistent with the Evolutionary Theory you mentioned in sentence 3. Evolutionary Theory is a Scientific Theory. Metaphysical terms are not logically coherent with Scientific Theories.]
"all is based on money."[Drop the word "nowadays". It is trite.
It does not make one look intelligent, which is how one wants to appear in a written communication. If there is a date at the top of any paper or essay you write, it is presumed that you write about contemporary events, unless you make a reference to a specific Century or Decade. =========== And yes, money is commonly seen as a goal. The question is, is this a "value" to which you referred before, or are you citing it as a vice? The question to ask therefore, as a writer, is whether or not you have by this point in your essay, made clear what the Values are? Where does one locate that kind of specific data? Here is my point Mary. Do not let yourself be "trained" to write in generalities.]
"Consequently, to earn becomes the main aim that can be reached with every means and at any price. Making our own interests is the most important thing. The bigger problem is that this principle is also followed in each aspect of our life. For this reason we are living an age [dominated] by convenience, a concept closely tied to that of appearance." [Yes, and this is certainly true. However, now the subject has become more complicated, without having identified the Values mentioned before, you see? Now the argument has expanded from Values, to claiming that of
Earning--by---any--means---and---any---price, without verification, to the sudden introduction of the subject of "convenience," complicated further still by the qualification of "appearance". The subject of the essay is getting extremely complicated, and has moved well beyond any proof of the earliest subject of the essay. The guideline to be followed is this Mary. Do not write, what you have no proof for. That is what an Ethical Journalism is.]
"What is important is to appear beautiful, kind, available only in order to reach a certain purpose. Unfortunately, by now, this way of thinking is part of our culture and very few people remain faithful to the true values."
[Yes, and arguably, this is absolutely true. but you see, this returns again, to writing about "values" by vague references and what are termed
"glittering generalities". Values have been referred to more than several times, but nothing specific at all was written to indicate what value is "true" or essential to human experience. Furthermore my dear friend, if you write about Values in the context of the Scientific Theory of Evolution or an "Evolved Society" then you have committed an error termed "The Naturalistic Fallacy. It tells us that we cannot derive a VALUE from a FACT, or an "ought" from an "is".]
"The values of our grandparents’ age when what you had was enough and man wasn’t so selfish as now."-----[But that simply presents the Grandparents as a "cliche" or some kind of a glowing social stereotype. One could equally cite the fellow who reminds us of the proverbialism; "The only thing good about the 'Good Old Days' is that their gone!" An essay like this requires facts, and that is most difficult because you went from discussing a Scientific Theory, to discussing Values
which is Ethics, and belongs properly to Philosophy.]
Your vocabulary is very good. Your sentence structure in general, was excellent.
But you need solid facts. Most of all, you need to determine whether you are discussing Scientific Fact and Theories, or discussing Ethics in the context of Philosophy. The entire issue becomes even more complicated, if Values are considered in the context of Religion. Then Theology has to be brought into the consideration. This kind of writing approaches a kind of "Theory of Everything" and it is a monumental task. Some of the greatest minds in academia have attempted this sort of thing, and their published books fill the bookshelves, and few if anyone reads them, because it has never been successfully done. The very first time someone sees your mention of a Scientific Theory (Evolution) and a Metaphysical Term (Positive) they will immediately through up a mental barrier and say; "Wait a minute. Science hasn't done that since before 1834, when it was called "Natural Philosophy!. You can't do that!"
Remember; find facts to support your conclusion.
--Warm Regards, Bruce
Please enter between 25 and 8000 characters.