Site Feedback

On Truth and Fallacy (correction is appreciated)

The grandiloquent debate over truth and fallacy has been lasting through human civilization since the dawn of language.
And typically speaking the norm of what is right or wrong is set by the authority, the ruler, the group which guide the majority. The most stable relationship between government and the people is mingled with constant conflict and cooperation, without dynamic, the country is a tomb (say hello to DPRK). But on the other hand, there is something called "social consensus". If there's someone spitting on a clean floor on purpose, this is wrong; if Mehmet or Ahmet is shooted just because he is a Muslim, this is wrong; if you fart in the public which vexes others, this is wrong -- because all the above can be concluded as violation to appropriate individual right and this individual right is based on fundamental desire of being happy.
Muslim women are required to veil their faces, thus any facial exposure is considered to be heathen or heretical -- this is authority. The women in China do not veil their faces and if a woman veil her face, she is considered "bizzare", or more worse, she's going to be taunted -- this is social consensus.
But now, I've dragged myself into a muddled paradox. Why? Because I neglected one thing, that is "social consensus" varies from culture to culture, country to country. There are some things in China which are taken as common sense, but in other countries, those are utter moronity :p Just like the Muslim stuff I mentioned above.
This social consensus is what terrifies me most. When devilry is rife and people are blind, the happiness of misconduct will be in its prime. And most of the time the majority is always the mediocrity, that's why the anarchism is doomed to fray around the edges and the absolute individualism will turn out to be moribund -- that's why religion is needed, because it is the primitive for human beings to have somnething to believe, to know what is right or wrong, just like gods in every reliogion separate the sky and the earth.
Perhaps now those utilitarianists are smiling sneakingly, but....anyway, verbum sat sapienti.

Aug.6th, 2013.

Share:

 

9 comments

    Please enter between 0 and 2000 characters.

     

    Corrections

     

    First comments: Ok. This is a really good essay. The main problems aren't vocabulary or grammar etc. It's mainly problems of tone, making it sound more natural and giving more precision to the meaning.

     

    On Truth and Fallacy (correction is appreciated) (The opposite of Truth would be Lies, rather than 'fallacy'. But are you really talking about Truth and Lies? The essay seems to be more about Right and Wrong and how they differ from culture to culture)

    The grandiloquent  (see comment) over truth and fallacy has been lasting through human civilization ('lasted' is simpler and more economical) since the dawn of language (I would also argue that language didn't just 'dawn' or spring from nowhere. Maybe it would be best to say something like 'man first began to talk' or the 'creation of language itself').
    And (It's generally not great grammar to start a sentence with a conjunction like 'and') typically speaking the norm of what is right or wrong is set by the authority, the ruler, the group which guides the majority. The most stable relationship between government and the people is mingled with constant conflict and cooperation (There's got to be a better way of saying this. The meaning is a bit obscured. Perhaps, 'The relationship between government and the people is founded on a dynamic of constant conflict and resolution which produces stability'. Without this dynamic, the country is becomes a tomb (say hello (this sticks out because its very informal and doesn't sit with either the subject or the tone set for the rest of the piece. Probably best to say 'e.g.'. Maybe you should elaborate on how the dynamic prevents a country from becoming like 'a tomb' and what that means) to DPRK). But On the other hand, there is also something called "social consensus". If there's someone spitting someone spits on a clean floor on purpose, this is wrong; if Mehmet or Ahmet is shooted shot ( are executed) just because he is a  (on account of being) Muslim, this is wrong; if you fart ('fart' is again a very informal term, 'break wind' is the expression you want) in the public which vexes others, this is wrong -- because all the above can be concluded as considered violations to of appropriate individual rights and this individual right is based on fundamental desire of being to be happy (are rights really based on a desire to be happy? I think you're trying to sneak it a utilitarian argument here. But human rights are purely based on utilitarian arguments).
    Muslim women are required to veil their faces, thus any facial exposure is considered to be heathen or heretical (I'm not sure whether in Islam if a woman doesn't wear a veil that it is considered 'heathen' or 'heretical'. It is certainly considered vulgar and unbecoming) -- this is authority. The women in China do not veil their faces and if a woman veils her face, she is considered "bizzare"bizarre, or more worse, she's going to be taunted -- this is social consensus.
    But now, I've dragged myself into a muddled confusing paradox . Why? Because I neglected one thing and that is that "social consensus" varies from culture to culture, country to country (that is repetitious). There are some things in China which are taken as common sense, but in other countries, those are utter moronity (does 'moronity' even exist? I would just say 'utterly ridiculous') :p Just like the Muslim stuff I mentioned above.
    This sSocial consensus is what terrifies me most. When devilry (Again people wouldn't really use 'devilry'. 'Evil' is what people would use) is rife and people are blind, the happiness of misconduct (bad behaviour maybe) will be in its prime. And most of the time the majority is always the mediocrity, that's why the anarchism is doomed to fray around the edges and the absolute individualism will turn out to be moribund (The sentence grammatical sense but I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'anarchy fraying around the edges') -- that's why religion is needed, because it is the primitive (You mean 'essential') for human beings to have somnething something to believe in, to know what is right or wrong, just like gods in every reliogion religion separate the sky and the earth.
    Perhaps now those utilitarianists are smiling sneakingly, but....anyway, verbum sat sapienti.

    Aug.6th, 2013.

    Write a correction

    Please enter between 25 and 8000 characters.

     

    More notebook entries written in English

    Show More