![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Homework. For that darned History class.
Sep. 23rd, 2003 09:55 pm( In which it is laid out the tenets of an alternate interpretation of human nature and in which it is used to explain the driving forces behind the man of war and the man of peace. )
Antonuk can say what she wants but her biggest lie is saying she is trying not to force her viewpoint on us and her biggest mistake is calling us all hypocrites before hearing our full word [because our ideas are not either one extreme or another; is it not true that there is understandibly definitely contradiction in anyone's understanding of the world? If that were the case then why must she stop us in the middle of presenting ourselves and say it that 'if you keep going like that you'll screw up really bad'?] and her biggest blunder is thinking we're all idiots and don't have the right to silent disagreement.
And I shall guarantee you [that, if she could,] she will tear this essay to shreds like she did the misguided G4 letter last year for its basic premise is nothing she has taught and is probably too 'superficial' and 'immature' and 'idealistic' for 'the work of an IB student' while it is not allowed to be argued that man's nature is inherently greedy. She will tear it to shreds because it speaks not of pride as the sole source of moral suppression nor does it present historical proof and because it is a product of 'emotional reaction' rather than of a 'researched/informed reaction' -- valuing, in plain, head over heart. How are there only hypocrites between idealists and realists? If 'real' implies 'truth' and 'truth' implies 'right,' it implies realism is right but can idealism ever be right? As well, does idealism have to apply to a vision of collectivism and realism a 'reality' of individualism? Can it be the other way around?
I don't think of asking these questions in class, or making any statements of opinion [there]. Think of it as a valuable object. Every time you take it out for someone to look at, either that person or someone else tries to take it away from you. After a while you become so protective of it you just don't bring it out anymore or only show people when you and the viewer are alone. Now replace that valuable object with my philosophies. That's why I don't try to join the class discussions. If my ideas had ever been accepted [for what they are worth] by a person of higher authority it would have been different. If there was one time you could show someone your object without someone trying to steal it you'd be somewhat more optimistic than if it almost got stolen every single time. It's why I write in my diary only when I'm alone in my room. The only reason why I prefer to do my homework when no one's watching or in the vicinity (especially if it's moral stuff like this essay for social class). (And my mom thinks I'm psychotic because of that! How absurd!)
Antonuk can say what she wants but her biggest lie is saying she is trying not to force her viewpoint on us and her biggest mistake is calling us all hypocrites before hearing our full word [because our ideas are not either one extreme or another; is it not true that there is understandibly definitely contradiction in anyone's understanding of the world? If that were the case then why must she stop us in the middle of presenting ourselves and say it that 'if you keep going like that you'll screw up really bad'?] and her biggest blunder is thinking we're all idiots and don't have the right to silent disagreement.
And I shall guarantee you [that, if she could,] she will tear this essay to shreds like she did the misguided G4 letter last year for its basic premise is nothing she has taught and is probably too 'superficial' and 'immature' and 'idealistic' for 'the work of an IB student' while it is not allowed to be argued that man's nature is inherently greedy. She will tear it to shreds because it speaks not of pride as the sole source of moral suppression nor does it present historical proof and because it is a product of 'emotional reaction' rather than of a 'researched/informed reaction' -- valuing, in plain, head over heart. How are there only hypocrites between idealists and realists? If 'real' implies 'truth' and 'truth' implies 'right,' it implies realism is right but can idealism ever be right? As well, does idealism have to apply to a vision of collectivism and realism a 'reality' of individualism? Can it be the other way around?
I don't think of asking these questions in class, or making any statements of opinion [there]. Think of it as a valuable object. Every time you take it out for someone to look at, either that person or someone else tries to take it away from you. After a while you become so protective of it you just don't bring it out anymore or only show people when you and the viewer are alone. Now replace that valuable object with my philosophies. That's why I don't try to join the class discussions. If my ideas had ever been accepted [for what they are worth] by a person of higher authority it would have been different. If there was one time you could show someone your object without someone trying to steal it you'd be somewhat more optimistic than if it almost got stolen every single time. It's why I write in my diary only when I'm alone in my room. The only reason why I prefer to do my homework when no one's watching or in the vicinity (especially if it's moral stuff like this essay for social class). (And my mom thinks I'm psychotic because of that! How absurd!)
