Please Read This Story, Thank You

Central Argument: We are becoming rude as our expression of appreciation changes over time. However, if we express our appreciation in a genuine manner, our new expressions don’t really matter.

Today, we live in a 21th century. One thing that is different now from old days is our expression of greeting and replying. We say “what’s up?” in place of “how are you?” and “sure” instead of "you're welcome." In article Please Read This Story, Thank You, Linton Weeks reminds us that we, our new generations, are becoming impolite as our expression of appreciation changes over time; however, if we express our appreciation in a genuine manner, our new expressions don’t really matter. However, I really think that our new casual expression of appreciation cannot replace traditional etiquette because they are not as deep and meaningful as traditional etiquette.

My dad always says, “Manner comes before anything.” I can understand his point. I also agree that manner should be learned before anything else because it is the most important thing we have to have as a human being. What is the use if you are highly educated, but not polite and humble? What is the use if you are genius, but not qualified as a good character? Manner is the center of our life.

There are many words for same or similar meanings. This is not because so that we can have variety of options to choose which word to use but because there are proper and adequate words for particular situation. One of my examples is “yeap” and “yeah.” These words cannot always be used in place of “yes.” We should really learn to use the right word for right time.

Furthermore, there are reasons for constructing a sentence. A sentence is a piece of words combined together to create a whole new meaning or express deeper in meaning. Just like how “sure” cannot replace “you are welcome,” one word answer can never fully express meaning of a sentence, which consists of subject, verb, and object. For example, “move” does not contain a polite meaning of “can you please move?” As these examples shows, we should try to use a sentence instead of one word answer.

As a society, we must learn to see that the only worthwhile growth in society is the one who has manners. High grade students mean nothing unless they are students who know how to thank and appreciate teachers who pours their precious time and effort working to enhance students’ ability and knowledge because no one will want to use or hire anyone who are rude. If I was an employer, I would rather employ the one who are hard worker and have good manner than the one who are smart but doesn’t know how to appreciate elder. After all, manner is what matters the most.

New communicating expression or etiquette is not a universal good. Just because there are other ways to express similar meaning doesn’t mean they contain the same meaning as original one. We, self-centered individuals, have to learn to appreciate elders around us who created what is now today. Let us conserve our traditional manners and forms of etiquette for us and for everyone.

Why We Like What We Like

Central Argument: Often our perceptual qualities or preferences are not based on us but on popular decision.

How do we know what is tasty and what is not tasty when it comes to food? The answer is not tongue but the perception that it is good because others said so.

In article Why We Like What We Like, Alva Noë proves that our perceptual qualities or preferences are not based on us, but on popular decision. I strongly feel the same way because I see from Woodstockers’ attitude and many other high school students’ way of thinking.

Since “taste, we suppose, is in the mouth,” Noë makes an assumption that “if we can't discriminate taste just on the basis of what is happening in our taste buds, then, well, we are making the difference up.” He then proves this hypothesis with examples of red wine and white wine, and paté and dog food: “It turns out most people won't notice the difference between paté and dog food, so long as the latter is suitably presented with the right sort of garnish. And as for our ability to discriminate wine, even experts may confuse a white wine with a red when it is served at room temperature in a dark glass.” This clearly shows that we cannot determine the difference between tasty and nasty, good and bad, right and wrong when we are depended on taste only.

Woodstock food is a good example of such case. If anyone asks Woodstockers how is food, this is our answer: “It sucks.” We merely, simply, mindlessly say school food sucks because that is what everyone says. But is this really true? Is school food really bad? I personally think we say such things because it is provided in Woodstock. If Woodstock food is provided in a gorgeous Indian restaurant, we won’t at least say, “Food sucks.” Just because it is Woodstock food, it doesn’t mean food is bad. Such thinking is a wrong perception. Woodstock food is not that bad as how we say. I honestly think we are exaggerating too much.

Another example is a university. Many of high school students, including myself, desire to attend elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. Of course. They tend to have better faculty, better facility, and better programs than many other universities. However, one main reason for going to such university is because they are top ranking universities and they can help us to get a nice job. If such is a case, won’t we also consider going to Bluffton if we were told that Bluffton is an elite school and one of the best schools in the United States?

Now we should accept that gourmet liver paté is no better than dog food. We cannot nor should not say that paté is tasty because it is expensive and served in restaurant, and dog food is awful because it is dog’s food because we do not “notice the difference between paté and dog food.” If we accept this, then we should also accept that our perceptual qualities are based on how we think about what we know.

We, as a society, have to learn to appreciate the true quality of life around us more than merely following what.

Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?

Central Argument: Surveillance does not truly make us morally better because it only forces us to the right thing rather than doing it from the bottom of our heart.

Here is my question. Do we do the right thing because someone is watching us or do we do the right thing because we want to be morally right? I should probably answer with a quote by Roger Penrose: “As for morality, well that's all tied up with the question of consciousness.” True morality, I believe, depends on a question of consciousness.

In an article Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better, Emrys Westacott answers that Surveillance does not truly make us morally better because it only forces us to the right thing rather than making us to the right thing from the bottom of our heart. I completely agree with Westacott’s answer because Thomas More’s Utopia and human nature prove that nothing can truly make human beings morally right.

As most of you know, Thomas More was a socialist who desired to create a “Utopian Society” where there is justice and equality. However, such an ideal world never existed and will never exist because men are covetous and self-centered because nothing can be right with such an evil nature of human being. Utopia can be created under one and only condition – that is morality. Thomas More, therefore, created specific plans to make men physically, mentally, and morally perfect, which is to place people in a system of eight hours of sleep, eight hours of work, and eight hours of leisure. Such is an example of surveillance that failed to work.  

Perhaps, you may think surveillance now can make us morally better with an advanced technology – Closed Circuit Tele Vision (CCTV). It is true that anyone under scrutiny or CCTV will definitely act moral because they are conscious of someone watching them. But this tells us that if there is no CCTV, then someone may not act moral. As a human being, it is hard to deny that many of us will not always act moral when there is nothing that is watching us. In fact, many of us will behave immoral whenever we want if there is no surveillance. Suppose there was $10,000 on the ground and there is no one watching us, but it is not yours. Out of ten people at least half of them will pick it up and use it for themselves. This time, everything is in same condition except there is CCTV. Out of then people no one will steal it unless the person doesn’t mind getting imprisoned. This example apparently shows that morality is depends on whether there is surveillance or not. So how can we dare to say that surveillance is making us morally better? When there is no surveillance, we have to admit the fact that our result can be different. Surveillance is a mere method that forces us to the right thing rather than teaching us to the right thing. Therefore, surveillance cannot make us morally better.

Surveillance does play a role in making us to do the right thing. However, as Emrys Westacott argued, we must realize that it can never truly make us morally better. Thomas More and many other idealists failed to create a Utopian Society with a method of surveillance. Our human nature shows that we cannot become better by surveillance. Remember this: Right behavior means nothing unless it reflects a person who wants to do the right thing.

The Rise of 'Awesome'

Central Argument: evolution also takes place in language.

When we think about evolution, we tend to picture something like above (forget about last stage of human evolution: machine). However, according to the definition of Wikipedia, evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolution applies in everything such as matter, technology, or even language. In The Economist, Robert Lane Greene argues that evolution also takes place in language. I also agree that language changes over a period of time as Greene's evidence and Sir Francis Bacon's essay show.

In Robert Lane Greene’s article “THE RICE OF AWESOME," Greene proves his argument by explaining how terrible and awesome words now differ from how it was before. When we think of the definition of terrible, most of us will say “shockingly bad” or “bad.” This actually is a new common meaning for terrible that we normally use in our daily lives. However, Greene states that terrible before “had a strong connection to “terror.” This tells us that terrible was not something that was simply used in our lives; it was a word used in horrible and fearful situations. Similar changes happened to the definition of awesome over a period of time. Greene states that “the first time ‘awesome’ appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary, in 1598, it was a description for someone feeling awe, rather than someone inspiring it.” Ironically, we now do not use awesome to describe a feeling of awe; in fact, we now use awesome to describe something great and nice. These two examples clearly prove that language does change.

Another example can be seen in Sir Francis Bacon’s essays. You must have heard Francis Bacon at least once in your high school life. He was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, champion of modern science, and contemporary of Shakespeare. When we actually read his essays, it is very hard to understand his points. This is because the writing style has changed. This is an excerpt from his essay on Of Marriage and Single Life: “HE THAT hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief. Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men; which both in affection and means, have married and endowed the public.” Despite this phrase is composed of only two sentences, it is pain in the ass to read and actually understand such writing because the grammar and words are very difficult and complicated. If Francis Bacon was still living today, he will redefine this phrase into something like this: A man who has a family can be hindrance because it is an obstruction for his pursuit of success. The greatest work is wrought when one is single. He was a man who lived less than 400 years ago, but his style of writing does not exist anymore today. This also proves Greene’s central argument that language also evolve.

Without question, evolution is a universal principle that takes place in the world we live in, even in language. Robert Lane Greene’s examples of terrible and awesome and Sir Francis Bacon’s essay excerpt evidently ascertains that evolution is taking place in our language.

Of studies

Central Argument: Studies are important because we can apply them in real life.

Ever since the Enlightenment, men began to reason and pursue education. Now education is one of the essential parts in the world we live in today. Emphasis on the importance of education can be seen again in Of Studies as Francis Bacon argues that studies can be applied in real life. However, this can be true only if we pursue proper and appropriate education.

Today, students cannot be satisfied with what they are getting. They must get higher and higher test scores and get in to better and better universities. In order to make the dream come true, many students choose to copy and cheat instead of studying harder. Therefore, high test scores mean nothing unless it reflects student who are better problem solver and elite university students mean nothing unless they reflect their true knowledge in life.

 Train to Pakistan by Kushwant Singh is an example that shows that education is not everything. Juggut Singh who were not educated and caused many trouble in his village actually contributed better than Iqbal who were educated and had better knowledge than Juggut Singh. Although Juggut Singh was not educated, he could do something for his village. During the partition of India, there was mass immigration from Mano Majra, a village where Juggut Singh lived. When Juggut Singh found out that Sikhs who were moving to Pakistan were in trouble, he stood up to help them. He actually went to the railway where there were traps to crash train, make people fall from train and die. He removed all traps so that trains could safely pass through. Meanwhile, despite the fact that Iqbal knew about his, he did not do anything to help them; he just sat down and did nothing. This clearly shows that there is something more important than education – that is a will to sacrifice for others.

If one purse education only to benefit oneself only, then there is no point of applying one’s knowledge in real life. It will just make the world even worse because that person will use his knowledge to benefit himself only; he will only focus and think what can he do to make his life better. Therefore, whether “reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man” or not, we should really think deeply the reason we are pursuing education.       

Of Marriage and Single Life

Central Arguement: When you are young, you should contribute something to society and when you become old, you should marry and produce children

 

There are two types of life in this world: unmarried and married life. According to essay on Of marriage and Single Life, Francis Bacon reveals the importance of unmarried and married life as they both contribute to society in a different way. He states that unmarried men are essential in terms of contribution to society as they can challenge something new and strive to achieve. On the other hand, he states that married life is just as important as unmarried life because they are the one who produces children. Therefore, we as a society should strive to achieve goals and contribute to society when we are young and have a family when we become old.

 

My dad always tells me this: “This is the very time.” He is right when he said that now is the time for me to explore and challenge. In life, there is always right time for what we should do. When we are kids, our duty is to go out and play with other friends. When we become high school student, it is our duty to play less and study harder than before to get in to good colleges. When we go to colleges, we should learn specific skills in a particular area to get ready to stand in society. When we graduate, we should then use our skills that we learned in college to bring changes for the people, the nation, and the world. However, when we become old, it is our duty to marry and produce children who will also go through the process I explained above. I believe this is the universal principle to regulate the world.

 

            “The most ordinary cause of a single life, is liberty,” said Francis Bacon. In this phrase, liberty can be best described as freedom and autonomy. This is the only time when we can decide and behave based on what we think. Once we are married, we have to discuss with our partner and live for our children. That is the reason why Francis Bacon said, “certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men.” Therefore, we should we should contribute something to society when we have “liberty.”

 

Age is not just an indication to show us how old we are. Age is like an instruction to teach us what we should do. If we are true civilians and noble citizens, then it is our responsibility to live both a single and married life as Francis Bacon said.

Why Good Advertising Works (Even When You Think It Doesn't)

            Central Argument: By creating positive memories and feelings, advertisement successfully encourages us to buy their products sometime later.     

Without question, those who think that advertising does not work are stupid. I have to say that this is something that can never be argued because we know for the fact that ADVERTISING DOES WORK.

            Here is the first reason why advertising works: According to Why Good Advertising Works (Even When You Think It Doesn't), the author states that the United States companies invest $70 billion in advertising. Anyone who says that advertising does not work is basically saying that these companies are so stupid that they are wasting billions of dollars on advertising. Why would anyone just waste money on something that does not work? One of the main purposes of all companies in the world is to gain profit. They will never ever do something that is unprofitable. Just for the fact that advertisement has been continued over a long period of time shows that it works. No one would continue something that does not work. It’s commonsense.

            Secondly, we live in a world of competition. Companies cannot survive without advertising through diverse use of media such as newspaper, radio, and television. It is also through advertisement that we gain awareness of new products or ideas of the companies. There are no other ways. Therefore, although we are not conscious of how we know what we know, whatever we know about new products and ideas are all because of advertisements. Movie is a good example of this case. How did we know that new movie came out? It is through repetition of trailers in TV and posters on the wall. Marketers seed such memories in our brain through various ways of advertisement and causes us remember about it constantly.

In addition to that, such memories eventually influence us to buy their products as the author states “engaging and memorable ads slip ideas past our defenses and seed memories that influence our behavior.” Why do buy movie tickets? Why do we want to watch movie? Many people, of course, like watching movie. But can they possibly know and watch movie if they do not have information that new movie came out? Exactly. Advertisement is what causes us to act.

I would like to end by what the author said at the end of the article: “And in addition to millions of dollars, they have something else most people don't have: Access to data that proves their point.”