<p>I've written 3 essays so far, and I don't know where I stand, so I was hoping someone could give me a rough gauge of where I stand? Constructive criticism would really be a great help, because right now I'm not really sure of what's I'm doing right or wrong.
Would really appreciate any feedback whatsoever. Thanks!</p>
<p>(I realise 3 essays is a lot to read, so you can just skim through!)</p>
<hr>
<p>"Do changes that make our lives easier not necessarily make them better?"</p>
<p>Changes to improve our lives do not necessarily change them for the better. Take for example, F. Scott Fitzgeralds Great Gatsby and Stalins policy of collectivization. These examples clearly demonstrate that while they may work to increase the standard of our lives, they do not benefit us in a positive way.</p>
<p>Firstly, The Great Gatsby is an excellent example where the characters have all committed selfish acts for their own convenience. However, most of these acts backfire and some end up with disastrous consequences. The central character of the book, Gatsby, is just one of the characters who had a nasty ending. Gatsby who is initially poor, resorts to illegal activities to transform his life into something better. He eventually manages to gain fortune and make a name for his self. All this is done so he could impress Daisy, who comes from high society, and be worthy enough for her. While Gatsby is able to sweep Daisy of her feet, he is later ditched by her when her husband reveals to her Gatsbys criminal activities. However, before Gatsby is discarded by Daisy, she uses him to cover up for her murderous act of killing her husbands mistress. Daisys husband later sets him up, and he dies an untimely death for covering up Daisys act of murder. At his funeral, only 3 people attend, despite the immense popularity he enjoyed while alive, from the grand parties he threw every week. Gatsbys unfortunate ending shows that though his actions initially helped him by, obtaining money and winning back Daisys heart, it also paved the way for his downfall because his mindless love for Daisy proved fatal. His money is also shown to be worthless, because nobody cared about Gatsby and his riches anymore when he died. His miserable and lonely death showed that his money laundering activities all came to naught in the end.</p>
<p>Secondly, in Communist Russia, Stalins policy of Collectivization, aimed to increase faming productivity by making use of tractors and joining plots of land rather than using individual plots. These two methods would allow for more efficiency in farming by upgrading from manual methods to mechanical methods, and lead to an increase in the rate of production. Joining plots instead of having farming plots split up also meant that the land would be more efficiently used as well, and therefore increase the output. However, this policy had 2 problems. One was that the people did not know how to operate the tractors and were hence unable to fully utilize them. They also failed to maintain the equipment and the machines were left to waste. Second, was that most landowners and farmers did not like the idea of joining their land into collective farms because they did not want to share their lands. Doing so, also meant that they would lose their property and lose part of their wealth. Unhappy with this policy, many workers had a negative working attitude and as a result, production output was extremely poor. Levels of production remained low for many years, and were actually worse than previous years. Thus we can see that though changes are often made meant for the better, sometimes they do not work out successfully.</p>
<p>After careful analysis of The Great Gatsby and Stalins policy of collectivization, we can now conclude that indeed, changes meant to improve the lives of people by raising the standard of living or by making life more convenient, do not often lead to good outcomes but can sometimes have adverse circumstances instead. Therefore, change can be made with good intentions to improve life, but do not guarantee a life of improvement.</p>
<hr>
<p>"Can knowledge be a burden rather than a benefit?"</p>
<p>Knowledge, rather than being a benefit, is a burden to people because the more you know the greater your worries get. William Goldings Lord of the Flies and President Roosevelts speech about the D-DAY landings of WWII both clearly demonstrate that knowledge, or in other words, the truth, weighs people down; it does not free people.</p>
<p>First and foremost, in Lord of the Flies, the children after having killed one their own, Simon, had two differing responses to his death. One group remained ignorant of what they had done, while the other realized that they had a hand in Simons death and were haunted by their guilt. Here, knowledge means recognizing something for what it is, or recognizing the truth of things. The group that failed to register the death of Simon in their minds continued with their reckless behavior, but nonetheless remained happy and carefree. On the other hand, the group that recognized the cause of Simons death to be themselves were left traumatized and could not come to terms with what they did. This shows that knowledge strips away your innocence, because it forces you to deal with the truth and with reality. Because many people, especially the young and inexperienced are unable to deal with such cold harsh facts, this knowledge then becomes a burden to them. Therefore, Simons death that was a rude awakening for some, both characters and readers alike, shows that knowledge is not a benefit because it only causes despair to the unsuspecting.</p>
<p>Secondly, President Roosevelts speech to American citizens about the D-day Landings in France during the World War II shows that sometimes people are better off without knowing the horrors of reality. In the speech, Roosevelt cited the reasons for Americans participations in the war to be fighting for the cause of justice and freedom for the oppressed. The speech which was for the sole purpose of quelling the agitated and worried hearts of the citizens, contained nothing about the dangers of the battle, and the devastation and casualties caused. Instead, it emphasized the glory of America that the army was fighting for. If however, Roosevelt had decided to reveal what had gone on at the shores of Normandy, this would have shocked and caused immense grief to the American citizens that the young men of the nation had undergone so much suffering and pain. Therefore, in order to keep the people calm and avoid chaos, Roosevelt could only choose to keep the people in the dark and did not reveal the true ongoings of the battle. Roosevelts speech on the D-day Landings thus shows that the truth may cause shock and distress and even disorder. It is also another reason why governments like to carry out activities in secret, to maintain order while preventing social unrest in society at the same time. In such cases, knowing the truth about dangerous affairs definitely does not benefit because it causes more harm than good to society. </p>
<p>After careful analysis of the Lord of the Flies and President Roosevelts D-day Landings speech we can see that indeed, knowledge is more a burden than a benefit. As people gain knowledge, they learn of the cruel reality of life and are not liberated but driven down into inner conflict. As the saying goes, Ignorance is bliss, because it gives an excuse to run and hide from the truth; it is protection against the obtrusiveness of the unknown.</p>
<hr>
<p>"Is it important to questions the ideas and decisions of people in positions of authority?"</p>
<p>Questioning the ideas and decisions of authority is necessary because everyone, whether in authority or not, is not faultless and perfect. Because of that, they are likely to make poor decisions due to flaws or oversight in their logic, or due to ulterior motives. We can see this in George Orwells animal farm and in the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR) during the cold war. These all clearly demonstrate that questioning the ideas and decisions of people in power is essential in life.</p>
<p>First, when people fail to question those in power, they subject themselves to the possibility of exploitation. The totalitarian regime presented by Orwell in Animal Farm shows the farm animals obeying the pigs unquestioningly, which leads to the pigs seize more and more power and take advantage of the animals. They do this because they know that that without anybody to hinder them, power is well with their reach. Most people, when tempted with lure of power will succumb and from there on, it is a steep slope hill. A commonly presented theme in Animal Farm is, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because of this fact that is not infallible, decisions and ideas made by those in power are not necessarily meant for the benefit of the people or for the common good, but to sometimes suit the interests of those in power.</p>
<p>Secondly, when people fail to question those in power, they hinder the possibility of improvement and this only creates disadvantages for themselves. USSRs downfall in the Cold War was largely due to a lack of changes in the system. The government had ineffective policies in place, and outdated systems, leading a failing economy and the country becoming stagnant. The government however, was conservative and refused to change, while the people did not bother questioning the governing because they felt they had no say. They chose to follow their government blindly instead, and because of their indifferent attitude towards matters of the country, the country did not prosper for many years and the people themselves suffered dearly for it. Failing to questions the government meant failing to take hold of the opportunity to take their fate into their own hands and change the way of life. Had the Russian citizens chosen to make use of whatever opportunity given to change their countrys system, they would have benefitted their own selves and their lives would have changed significantly. Therefore, when people fail to question those in authority and power, they are allowing flaws in ideas and decisions to continue because they are not providing the necessary feedback to help improve these ideas and decisions.</p>
<p>After the careful analysis of Animal Farm and the Soviet Unions downfall in the Cold warm, we can see that questioning the ideas of authority figures is indeed important because people are not perfect and mistakes are often made. Questioning ideas and decisions allows us to think more about the motives behind them and can reveal flaws that should be improved on. On the other hand, if one fails to question such things, what awaits is simply stagnation and decline.</p>
<hr>
<p>If you've read this far, thanks again!</p>