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.
Hi, I can help with your essay :)
Imagine a company managers making up a new strategic plan.
You could say: "Imagine the managers of a company creating 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 tone this down a little, its a long sentence for a question, and because its so long, it loses its effectiveness. You could state this notion in another way perhaps. And when you say " I would not bet on the latter one at least not in a long-term successful company. " I start to get confused, can you state these ideas in a more clear, concise way?
Hence plural opinions are highly desirable to prevent ourselves from being mastered by these people.
You should remove "these people" from your thesis statement, you have many good reasons to support your argument, but i would clear this up and strengthen it.
Thank you very much.
Do you see a picture of zealously arguing men or just a bunch of apathetic people, nodding their heads?
I'm not sure whether the latter would work?
Does it sound better?
Maybe you could say it like this?
Imagine the managers of a company creating a new strategic plan. Do you picture a group of zealously arguing businessmen, or just a bunch of apathetic people, nodding their heads? In order to manage a long-term, successful company, leaders must collaborate their opinions.
I would omit the part where you answer your question with your own opinion, "I'm not sure whether the latter would work?" I think a clear statement sounds better as part of your introduction.
I hope this helps :)
Ok, it sounds good. Thanks very much. By the way, what do you think about it generally? Because I would like to apply for some British university, but I am from Eastern Europe, so I really have no feedback for my essays in English here.I want to improve my writing so as to be able to construct a genuinely good composition. Thus if you can comment anything more, please don't hesitate and do it. I'll be grateful.
Thanks again.
Yes, of course, i am happy to help.
The mutual exchange of opinions is crucial In order to achieve a consensus, it is necessary for people to mutually exchange opinions and ideas. Noone An individual cannot be certain whether or not his belief is best.right andthereforethe To accomplish the best discussiondecisionseems to be the way ofrequires a group assessment of the possible 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.
I don't really like this part, it distracts from the introduction itself, maybe give more support to the thesis with another reason.
Hence plural opinions are highly desirable to prevent ourselves from being mastered by these people.
Hmmm... this seems to be your thesis statement, but it doesn't sound quite right. I don't think talking about pushy, obstinate, opinionated people is helping to support this statement. Unless you use a specific example of a real person (president Bush??) I would not use this idea. I think you mean that we must unite, people as a whole, and figure out what is best for everybody. I def like that you speak of democracy, but it sometimes sounds like rambling and gets off-track. I would use more facts about democracy and its benefits, also you say:
In addition to this, democracy has no sense per se, without diverse opinions.
This sentence kinda sticks out at the beginning of the paragraph, I would smooth this out... "A prime example of plural opinions is a democratic government." The give clear, straightforward examples of how this benefits the country as a whole, you could briefly compare to a dictatorship, which is the polar opposite.
If you still want more help, leave me a comment and I will do my best to get back to you.. Continue to work on your english and grammar. :) Best of luck
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay tonight. You have some good ideas about opinions, their role in government, and their role in our society. If you had outmaneuvered those grammatical errors, your two-paragraph introduction would have been a textbook example. I thought you did a wonderful job in constructing the thesis. Unfortunately, you did a lousy job examining the thesis in the body of the essay. The weakest paragraph was the one about tyranny (zealotry?). The sentence structure was incoherent and your thoughts broke down--almost entirely. I left the remnants of the main points for you to construct another paragraph with them as a backbone. Try to find an example of tyranny (zealotry?) in the past or present--a famous one. I would completely cut out the paragraphs that begin, "Although I have discussed the merits..." and "When all think alike..." as they wander unnecessarily or are redundant.
What is your native tongue?
To chalumeau:
Great thanks. I have rewritten that part. I hope you'll like it. I'm from Czech Republic, so my mother tongue is Czech (western-slavic language group). Why are you asking? And where are you from? Here is the reworked part and thanks again.
P.S.: I'll post some mere essays soon. I would appreciate if you read (and corrected) them too.
So long.
Ok I've corrected this paragraph too.
I would correct the hypothesis to reflect tyranny or tyrants.
Focus on the prevention of tyranny in the conclusion. Possibly
how some tyrants are really fools?
Why did you not choose to write about your personal experiences
in the Czech Republic? You have a wealth of experience there.
I'm from the U.S.
This essay is turning out to be very good.
Here is one paragrapgh. I would put it over that I have sent before. I am planning to elaborate all the thoughts suggested by you, soon. So this is just the first one.
As for the choice of Czech Republic,... you are probably right, but I am not sure whether I would be able to some it up in a few sentences.
I will do the rest as soon as possible. Thank you
Tyrants, holding the power, often become paranoid. Some of them, such as Hitler, start to suspect their closest co-workers of treachery and then kill them. Getting rid of former friends by implication weakens the tyrant's position. He loses professional affiliates who know precisely how to sustain his governance. The people's belief in his absolute power is also done harm - if he had to kill his friends, then he had to feel some insecurity. Moreover, if he slayed them, nobody can be safe. So the attempt to overthrow him should be made, because there's just not any other chance. Thus tyrants contribute to destabilising their governing, which seems to be rather ludicrous, but if you realise the influence that power has on man, doesn't sound irrational at all. And again, desire to control everyone's opinion is a very common cause of tyrant's becoming paranoid. Not many rulers can live calmly with the knowledge that the people, whom they govern, would make use of every option to kill them. Turns out, tyrants' endeavour to master everything is vastly counter-productive in its consequences.
I liked the previous paragraph on tyrants better than this last one.
You focused on the opinions before but switch to paranoia here.
It's true that tyrants such as Hitler exhibit paranoia, but it isn't
directly related to opinions or the paper.
Why don't you keep the 1st paragraph?
Try and work on the conclusion. I'll be happy to edit it.
well written. But it takes time to understand exactly
Ok, here is the conclusion. Thanks for the correction in advance. As soon as you correct it, I will piece it together and then post it again for the final check. I appreciate your help very much and I hope you won't mind editing my other essays that I'll send very soon. Thank you.
Prevention of tyranny should be one of the most essential points included in every state's constitution and more importantly in people's minds. People ought to be encouraged to express their opinions, even though they were critical. The ruling power should be strictly divided into three components, as it was figured out by Montesquieu many years ago, to stop anyone who would try to seize too much of it. The greatest opportunity for these vicious attempts always takes place in states where the inhabitants are indifferent to the political affairs. A wise philosopher said: 'For Evil suffices Good's doing nothing'. So the ones keeping silence, while tyranny is gaining control over their country, do have the responsibility for their state's situation; they bear a part of guilt. People should set many controlling mechanisms, overseeing government, so as to make every tyrannical endeavour futile. Furthermore, the opinions of all the citizens must exist, be heard, taken into consideration of the government and applied to its acting. Because the indifference would sooner, or later enable tyranny to raise. To end with, tyranny can take hold of power in many ways; absence of people's opinions is one of the simplest ones; luckily, the one which we may easily protect from. By having and expressing our opinions.
Here's the concluding paragraph revision. I started at the place I thought the paragraph truly began. The first few sentences were true and would be good in a longer essay.
So here is the final version of the whole essay. If you have anything more to add I will appreciate it. Thanks for your great help. It would be a pleasure to have my next essay corrected by you. I hope I'll manage to write and post it tomorrow.
On the Assets of Plural Opinions
Thank you for a great help. I have just posted a new essay. So I will be happy if you correct it. Thanks in advance.
