tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post9003570691924433267..comments2014-12-12T18:07:42.274-05:00Comments on Seminar in Composition : Revision 2Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-54317928607677348262014-11-14T21:36:16.483-05:002014-11-14T21:36:16.483-05:00Minor point - semicolons separate independent clau...Minor point - semicolons separate independent clauses. Colons explain a topic previously introduced. The second paragraph probably could have used a citation or two. Also, you do a good job of getting from Aristotle to Darwin in one paragraph. <br /><br />I’m enjoying the flashes of personality in your writing this time around: “This new age was like the Mike Tyson to Aristotle’s thought, for every new prominent mind was another punch to Aristotle and at the forefront was Dutch man Benedict Spinoza.” Obviously it depends on your audience, but it works for me.<br /><br />Your greatest strength here is that you really do have a decent handle, for such a short essay, on the relevant history of philosophy. Example: “Though I have seemingly repeated that the Age of Enlightenment threw away Aristotle’s concepts, change is harder said than done because there are a few parallels between Aristotle and Spinoza’s views on nature especially in the emphasis of the infinite power.” Your difficulty is focusing in on a clear argument of your own. What do *you* have to say about the history of the concept of nature? Maybe it’s not a profound contribution, but I want to know what you’re adding to the conversation, and it’s taking a little long to get there.<br /><br />Your focus on Locke, nature, and property is quite interesting. I think I know what you’re up to here, but I’m mostly curious to see whether you really are able to make something of this focus.<br /><br />The rest of the essay grows a little scattered. I won’t harass you over the details - let’s just say that it’s not as focused on what seemed to be your developing argument as it could be. Instead, you mostly go back to fairly general statements about the history of philosophy and science.<br /><br />How could it have been more focused? What I would have zeroed in on, if I were you, are these two ideas: Spinoza’s claim that nature is all of one substance, and Locke’s claim that nature exists (in my crude paraphrase) to be divided up, labored over and exploited as property. You take these two as representative enlightenment philosophers, and argue (not terribly directly) that Darwin is under their influence. Good! Now how does that matter?<br /><br />Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but there are two assumption in Darwin.<br />1. Darwin assumes that the rules are always the same - when one species becomes extinct in one place and time, it’s fundamentally similar in its mechanisms to how others species have gone extinct in other places and times.<br />2. Darwin assumes that it is both right and correct to take possession of things and understand them by cutting them up and looking at them under a microscope.<br /><br />I could give you examples of both assumption, but that’s just an attempt to show how you could argue that he needs to see nature as fundamentally similar everywhere (Spinoza) but also divisible and claimable (Locke). That’s my approach, not yours.<br /><br />Now, one finishing word: you covered this material well enough, with enough interesting touches, that I could identity a strong possible approach within rather complex topic. This shows good progress.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104678730176687014.post-84403548573436465512014-11-14T16:37:54.431-05:002014-11-14T16:37:54.431-05:00I peer reviewed with Ruthie and she was nothing sh...I peer reviewed with Ruthie and she was nothing short of very helpful. Though on Wednesday night I only had just over a page of my revision done she corrected a couple of grammar mistakes and pointed out that I probably needed to include an in class book into the revision. I tried to fit in Wilder and Abbey but the paragraph was forced and out of place so I simply mentioned them but didn't make them prominent. Also, she really like my "subjectivity vs objectivity" argument and Aristotle inclusion but for both she wanted me to elaborate because she saw quite a bit of potential. I did just that and I felt like this advice really strengthen my work. Ryan Cooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05335921990259144192noreply@blogger.com