Essay proofreading

I have completed a seminar self reflection essay and really need your guys' help. My professor has previously marked me down for not having a narrow enough thesis, and as a result having too broad of an essay. Could you guys please give me feedback on this essay? I want to leave her no choice but to give me an A. Below is the essay and directions. Thank you.

Directions:

Final Spring 2016 Seminar 103 Paper: A Reflection on Your Continuing Seminar Learning

5 pp. due Tuesday May 17 (first to Turnitin; hard copy due at our final class meeting)

Throughout my seminar career at Saint Mary’s I have become more and more progressive in my way of thinking due to my evolution from ideological conservatism driving my opinions, to my opinions being formed on the basis of reason, or what is called free-thought. From Hard Times to Marx, reading and discussing texts in seminar has enlightened me by encouraging me to question and analyze everything without an ideological lens, and instead with free-thinking solely dictating the validity of claims. This evolution was a direct result of the seminar learning outcomes.

Before Seminar 103 I had little interest in giving opinions I was opposed to credit or validity. I was stuck in a state of extreme closed-mindedness. Reading Dicken’s Hard Times was an enlightening journey for me. The main theme of the book is arguably the exploitation the individual experiences as a result of unregulated capitalist industry. To “identify and understand assumptions, theses, and arguments that exist in the work of authors” is the second intended student ability as a result of completing Seminar 103 under “Critical Thinking Learning Outcomes.” Identification of the argument in Hard Times was done through me critically thinking about whether or not what was happening in Hard Times to the working class was right. Hard Times showed me how the individual can be reduced to a machine in a capitalistic system. The unions formed as a result of exploitation also showcased the true need of such entities in society. Seminar stressed the understanding of a text being the gateway to the forming of an opinion. I acknowledged this and literally talked to myself for hours, critically thinking about the situational implications unregulated industry had on individuals. For example, there was a point in Hard Times where it was said that time did not seemingly exist to the worker because the worker did the same thing at the same time every day of his or her life. “Inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and tomorrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next” (Hard Times, 21). This lack of changing of events lead to the notion that time did not exist for the worker, as time is defined to be the passing of events. Consciously attempting to critically think about the implications of this, I came to the conclusion that the use of labor in this way was no different from the use of labor in communist regimes. Seminar helped me see capitalism in a very different way. It was made clear that capitalism could be just as oppressive as communism, with the only differentiation being where the concentration of power lies. The idea of a person feeling as if there is no time truly saddened me and made me realize capitalism was capable of destroying lives just as much as communism was, contrary to what I had previously believed.
What facilitated my epiphany that communism could be as bad as capitalism was an ability I acquired as a result of critically thinking about Hard Times: the ability to “understand assumptions.” By Dickens mentioning the redundancy of the worker’s life in Hard Times, I realized there was an assumption that must be made in order to come to the conclusion that such a lifestyle is undesirable. It must be assumed that people desire more than just the ability to feed themselves, clothe themselves, etc. In order for such a life to be undesirable, I reasoned that a person would have to desire freedom. This was the point where recognizing an assumption led me to an epiphany. The person who is being used as a utilitarian object can only be unhappy with their life if it is assumed they desire freedom. This assumption lead me to the realization that suppression of freedom within an economic system is not limited to systems such as communism, or other left-leaning systems.

In-class free writing was a factor that greatly contributed to my more progressive way of thinking. I remember looking at the reading calendar and seeing “Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto,” thinking how painful it was going to be to read such a disgusting book. The day of discussion for this text was started off by my the professor with a free writing exercise. She asked us to write down what we thought Marx “wanted.” Being now well-read on the text, I struggled to allow myself to write anything positive about Marx but ultimately I did just that. I wrote, “Marx wants to see an established working class not dependent on the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has too much power over the working class and he intends to undo this by putting in place a centralized government to heavily regulate industry.” Before this exercise it did not come into my mind that anyone could possibly benefit from communism. I had been fed information that gives no such system any glimmer of hope. After this free-write, it was clear that Marx’s intention of communism was not bad, but rather the theoretical formation of such an ideology was well-intentioned. Contrary to what I had believed before the free-write, Marx cannot be blamed for the tyrannical self-described “communist” regimes that have been historically abhorrent; something critics of communism quickly point to in an attempt to delegitimize the theory. Atrocities such as mass killings of citizens and the installation of labor camps for citizens are not mentioned anywhere in The Communist Manifesto. Therefore a regime calling itself “communist” while committing such crimes on its people cannot be seen as a fair example of a system following the theoretical framework of The Communist Manifesto. The new lens I saw communism through was a result of seminar forcing me to think critically. I did not view communism through a conservative lens anymore, but rather through an unbiased lens: that of free-thinking and progressivism.

In addition to free-writing, writing my comparative essay helped me become more progressive in my way of thinking with respect to religion. I chose to write an essay where I pretend to be Luther commenting on the Book of Genesis. In character as Luther I say that a man without faith cannot engage in a good act, regardless of the very act. An act is not inherently good, rather it is good because of the intention of the doer. This statement is simply paraphrased from a quote in Luther’s On Christian Liberty, where he says “then of what good are works done in such wickedness, even if they were the works of angels and apostles” (On Christian Liberty, 12)? This was such repulsive statement from Luther that I cringed upon reading it initially. Before reading Luther, I thought of him highly, almost as if he was a priestly figure. After paraphrasing him in my essay, it became clear that he was not as enlightened as I thought. To say a man without faith can only engage in “wicked” acts is despicable. An atheist and a nun can both feed starving children. The goodness of the act of feeding starving children is not dependent on the individual’s faith, therefore an act can be good in itself. This realization in my mind, I must credit to the writing of my essay on Luther and the Book of Genesis. Under “Written and Oral Communications Outcomes” the following is said: “analyze arguments so as to construct ones that are well supported (with appropriate use of textual evidence), are well reasoned, or are controlled by a thesis or exploratory question.” I had seen Luther in a good light for no reason other than his affiliation with something “good,” being religion. Upon reasoning his assertion that a man without faith can only engage in wicked acts, I accepted the fact that his assertion was unreasonable and childish. Seminar pushed me to critique such assertions via assignments such as my Luther/ Genesis essay. The ability to put aside previously held beliefs, especially when not backed by evidence or reason, led me to a more progressive way of thinking about religion. The more progressive lens I see religion through now is a direct result of paraphrasing Luther in my comparative essay.

Oral discussion of Marx played a huge role in making me a more progressive thinker. After the free-write we were randomly split into two groups, one group was to argue in favor of Marx as the bourgeoisie, and the other against Marx as the proletariat. I was chosen to argue against him. Throughout the debate, I began to realize the more points I made against Marx, the more I agreed with him. I kept saying things like “we employ you, therefore you should be happy you can support yourself.” The more I said such things, the more I began to realize I was on the wrong side. As in Hard Times, unregulated industry had become the centralized despotic government I had previously despised. How could I get away from this fact when it was right in my face? I truly grew from that discussion. I put aside my ideological leanings and instead of putting ideology above reason, I put reason above ideology. The result was a facilitated process seminar provided me with to become more enlightened on the subject of communism. A very iconic quote from The Communist Manifesto is the following: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite” (The Communist Manifesto, 34)! Specifically looking at “the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains,” it became rather apparent to me that Marx was well-intentioned in his attempt to rally together the oppressed working class in hopes of a revolution. Therefore this experience also led me down a more progressive way of thought, as well as reducing my close-mindedness on the subject of communism.

Shared inquiry is another thing that helped me become more open-minded to progressive thought. Simply listening to other ideas in class discussions aided in my open-mindedness. I remember a specific day where a student by the name of Michael brought up how the colonialists coming from Europe to the Americas were driven primarily by their religion; this lead to the claim that Christianity was at blame. I argued against him stating that because they are not acting in the way Jesus, as described in the New Testament as essentially being a pacifist, would want them to act. Therefore, they are not true Christians and should not be called Christians. I remember immediately questioning my reasoning and began to think about Islamic extremism. I would most definitely call Islamic extremists Muslims, although most Muslims are repulsed by the acts of Islamic extremists. In the same way, most Christians would be strongly opposed to the enslavement of other people in the name of Christianity, as was seen in another seminar text, De Las Casas. I came to the conclusion that just as Islamic extremists have perverted Islam, the Christians in De Las Casas had perverted Christianity, and that both groups were still affiliates of their religion, no matter the deviation from the norm. Michael helped me see this when he later stated that the Christians in De Las Casas read the bible just as every other Christian. I couldn’t help but think about how Islamists read the same Quran moderate Muslims read, and therefore internally conceded to the notion that the colonists were indeed Christians. Through shared inquiry I went from firmly believing the colonizers were not Christian to believing they were. The facilitator was the multitude of opinions in the room, and the random chance of Michael’s opinion being able to influence me to the point of concession. The concession was made on the basis of reason, and reason alone.

My deviation from a close-minded way of thinking to a more progressive way of thought was greatly facilitated by the three seminar learning outcomes. I learned to engage in respectful dialogue with open ears, analyze texts with critical thinking in mind, and find insights from essay writing. All of which were how seminar pushed me to a more progressive way of thinking.