Writing Feedback / An Essay About Maintaining Peace [4]

Hello. Here is my new essay. I will be happy if anyone corrects it and adds any comments. See my other essays as well.

Peace

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding
Albert Einstein

The USA considers attacking Iran in order to prevent it from gaining a nuclear bomb. Very similar scenario could be seen a few years earlier when George Bush executed the attack against Iraq which developed into a long-lasting bloodshed. I hope that this mistake will not repeat. Whatever point of view you prefer - moral, economic or political - none of them seems to have any convincing argument for being so. Nevertheless, if a lack of decency connected with economic reasons, they would form a solid pretext for aggressive politicians. So as to acquire Iran's oil, world rulers would unite and strike jointly. Massive counter-attack would be performed by Iran, possibly with some help of other anti-American countries. Vicious circle could continue in its destructive work. The USA governors are prone to solve world problems in a military way even if it's not inevitable. They should learn to respect other countries' freedom apart from their own, or at least rule the world with the same measure for everyone. Does China have nuclear bombs? Does USA assail it? No, it wouldn't be very tactical - China is stronger both in its economy and army. Did Eastern Europe suffer under the Soviet ruling? Indeed. Did America help? No. I really detest this opportunistic blather about protecting the world from lethal threat. After all, it's all about the money.

In contrast, some cases demand an application of force to sustain lawful acting. I'm talking about the police. However some may raise an objection that the police occupy themselves merely with fining disobedient drivers, no one can genuinely disbelieve in its safety assets. In ideal state, there would be no need of police, but provided that the most of us live in non-ideal country, somebody must maintain order, even though it was by force. Hopefully, one day, the necessity of policemen standing at every corner will disappear as the people become honest and fair-minded and then the idea of paradise in the Earth would be not far from fulfilled.

To summarise my thoughts, from one point Einstein's words prove to be doubtless. Conversely, at some situations, they cannot be employed; policemen have to arrest murderers using violent methods if unavoidable, because it truly contributes to keeping peace. Finally, for sincere peaceful living of every citizen, they should admire the values of their society and do nothing against law which would provoke power to demonstrate its impact on them.

Book Reports / On Evil Genii - minds and virtues [9]

I rewrote the concluding paragraph and put it after the first one. I also added something about virtues and a conclusion. Presently, I'm in high school. I'd like to apply for some British and American universities, next year. But at first, I must get a scholarship funding. So I have to send an application essay there.This my training for it. Then taking IELTS follows (I need at least 7.0 points). How do you see my chances? Please, be honest.

On Genii on Evil's Duty

The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues.

René Descartes

The status of genius is being nearly always ascribed to people standing on the 'Good Side'. But by what pattern do we presume they cannot be the evil ones? Why do we think that there is no man of Aristotle's intelligence, not willing to devote himself to science, and merely deceiving people to get their money, or confidence, instead? Do the evil genii exist? How can they endanger us? Is there any correlation between extraordinary abilities and goodness?

Honestly, I don't believe that character of a man evinces any connection with his intelligence at all. As the historical evidence proves, our world has experienced genii on both sides - good and evil; I have no reason to think otherwise. Evil genii exist. Their capabilities enable them to outwit other people using treacherous methods, which less insightful villains cannot use. I will demonstrate the impact of genii on each side as well as answer my opening questions more thoroughly in the following paragraphs.

A man doesn't become a nation's leader if he is not competent of ingenious acting. Regrettably, even Hitler was an exceptionally intelligent person. His thoughts, recorded in Mein Kampf, give us a deeper insight into his mind. We inquire that, once we free of all the racist insults included, some ideas appear to be formed by a brusque political thinker. No matter, what your conviction is, demanding bigger responsibility from politicians for their own decisions, would be an enhancement in government sphere. Hitler worked out many ideas, like the one mentioned, that cannot be objectively considered neither bad, nor silly. But he definitely personified an Evil in himself and his great thoughts were overwhelmed by the bestial ones.

Moreover, lots of insightful villains could be named in addition. Luckily, genial minds belong to the good side, too. Amongst those, many scientists, striving to improve peoples' lives, can be enumerated, as well as enlightened rulers, politicians and philosophers, whose efforts contribute to well-being of men. According to this, high intelligence seems to be regulated by Gaussian curve among good and bad people equally, which may sound a little negative. But as the amount of good people in the world is much larger than the quantity of others, the ratio of genii on both sides should follow the same rule.

Nevertheless, provided that good and evil genii seldom occur in the same era on both sides, one of the enemy sides often feels wronged. Environment always plays immensely important role in determining what way would the genius aim. We have to realise that the genius' fate is not firmly predestined; they can change their beliefs during life, they are being influenced by people around them; by many criteria, genii are similar to normal population.

They are capable - this is the key formulation. The greatest minds are more likely to be able of significant deeds. A lucid mind is greatly demanded means of achieving development and it's also the most dangerous weapon - constructing nuclear bombs, toxic gases and biological viruses. Dangerousness of a man grows with his psychical, abilities in a geometrical row if they are misused.

In contrast to this, many researchers dedicated their lives to the effort to improve the lives of others. For instance, take Marie Curie Sklodowska, a winner of Nobel Prize for Science and, who joined the army medical service during the First World War and exposed herself to radiation many times so as to help doctors examine their patients. She jeopardised her health to save people. Later, she died of radiation as a highly respected scientist and a virtuous heroine. The willingness to sacrifice herself for others made her an icon of science's merits.

Furthermore, a sort of solace may be sought in fact that there are some stupid people among bad. And the stupid ones often let themselves get caught while perpetrating a crime, which at least reduces the counts of bad side. Unfortunately merely by the stupid criminals.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that goodness of people is even harder to measure than their intelligence. Therefore we can never be sure what the real number of good and bad genii is. But it's easily presumable that the percentage is the same, as it works for all the features of character. Thus the war between Good and Evil lasts.

Thanks. I appreciate your help a lot.

Writing Feedback / Essay About the Importance of Plural Opinions [16]

On the Assets of Having Different Opinions

"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much."

Imagine a company managers making up a new strategic plan. Do you see a picture of enthusiastically arguing men, stating their reasons, sometimes almost shouting or just a bunch of people, calmly sitting on chairs, apathetically nodding their heads? I would not bet on the latter one at least not in a long-term successful company. The mutual exchange of opinions is crucial in order to achieve consensus. No one can be certain whether or not his belief is right and therefore the discussion seems to be the way of assessing the solutions so as to accomplish the best one. Although seldom, some people are deeply convinced about their version of the truth. Once they are given a power they represent a great danger for anyone whose life they can influence. Hence plural opinions are highly desirable to prevent ourselves from being mastered by these people.

In addition to this, democracy has no sense per se, without diverse opinions. They are the driving force behind every voting, defending our values as one of the essential rules to enable people live in peace, with enough money for necessary needs and to apply their free will. Despite democracy emerged to be extremely expensive in centuries, it still is the least restricting state system, designed to serve people not to enslave them which appears to me to be the most relevant attribute of governing establishment.

Moreover, different opinions lay huge inhibitions for tyranny. Dominating a state, in which the attention is being paid to the resolutions of politicians, they are being carefully supervised by the citizens so that to be fully accountable, a tyranny is unlikely to take place. Provided this, own opinion may help even with protecting human right to freedom. But a lot of people was surprised in the past when the tyranny took place, after they had abandoned their opinions and stopped asserting them.

A great drawback of the right to have an opinion lies in the fact that this right relates to everyone. Even the biggest fool (Not meant in a medical sense)is allowed to tell what he thinks, when he thinks that he thinks. Human rights must not be denied anybody, with no exceptions. Finally, fool is able to enrich a debate more than anyone would expect at times. And even if he doesn't, which represents the majority of cases, he should be allowed to participate in governing the community he lives in, because he ought to have an influence on decisions affecting his life. So the democracy for everyone should not bet just an auxiliary slogan availed to get elected and then neglected a second-rate interest, but a genuine goal of every politician as well as citizen.

Although I have discussed the merits of varying opinions in government sphere primarily so far, I would like to add a few words about 'democratic principles' in everyday use. In my experience, contemplating various people's arguments has proven to be the most effective means of resolving seemingly insoluble problems. How can you know that the man, who looks like an idiot and whom you strongly despise, will not have an idea which would your company and therefore you earn millions? A tricky question. You cannot. Thus you should not dismiss anyone's point of view, if there is even the slightest hope that it could help you. You might be surprised how well it works.

'When all think alike, no one is thinking very much', doesn't mean that we should not accept any other opinion but our own. This interpretation appears to be rather demagogic. The fact that we admit someone's having truth doesn't signify that we haven't considered it very profoundly. Blind acceptance, in the other hand, rarely leads to anybody's satisfaction.

In conclusion, we ought to evade having fear confrontation, but we should not stubbornly be attached to our beliefs, after they have been proven wrong. We should try to find the best solutions by mutual aid, by discussing, because exchanging opinions is not only the way of inducing an argument, it's also the way creative people work. For it's very effective.

Thanks everyone for your comments.