Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search
 




Average Rating
0.00

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Knowledge is what we quest for in all aspects of are lives but do we understand what we Reilly want from it. I will start with what I would like to call the modern renascences. In history there are many fast acting gapes in witch we make large advancments to art and sicnses like take the only one that you propel now with Rome and the de Vince stuff or some other vague memory’s from your short lived school years. “Ya! I remember” ha like I totilly believe you. Um on with the story some would say that the last hundred year as been the start of a newer larger renascences in that we are winding down with the major violence of are day and beginning to learn more and more of are self’s and the world around use. But do we now why we wish such great thing on are self’s NO! We still to this day and age have not come up with a resin from witch we are different from animal’s and why we think on a larger scale if I was to tell you that the only thing that separates us from animals is are simple drive to be better than what we are you’d laugh and karee on about “this dude” but on with the story I would like to study and know all there is to now but sadly my life will be to short am Walter cronkite “ and that’s the news to me”


Related Items

Comments

The following comments are for "Knowledge what for? (Part one)"
by overlored

a different breed of animal
Taken at face value, I agree with the comments kindly offered in response to your previous posts. Their words of guidance and encouragement apply to this new effort as well. Your thoughts and questions reveal a high degree of intelligence and introspection, both of which exceed your current ability to express them. A sincere effort & a willingness to use readily available tools such as a dictionary would improve your work immensely.
However,because your commendably wide vocabulary combined with your mastery of the befuddling complexities of English sentence structure stand in such stark contrast to your erratic use of punctuation, your sporadic use of informal "dude"-type structure and language,and in particular your spelling,filled with homonyms of the intended word-implicative of the use of a spellcheck without verifying definition- interspersed with mis-spellings apparently due to intermittent failure of the same program, I believe I am the latest participant in, or an intended victim of some type of performance art, which I find unconvincing for the aforementioned reasons. In short, your complex sentence stucture and wide vocabulary don't jibe with your frightful spelling and on/off puncuation.
Should my conclusion prove erroneous,I regret any emotional distress you endured due to my faux pas.
In either case you may wish to retain this cornucopia of wisdom as an example of pompous verbosity rendered in a tediously complex sentence structure,painful to endure but a joy to create.

What differentiates man from beast?
Only man deceives for amusement.

Wait, I've got another- it's good

Only man feels guilt, which causes the rationalization of our actions, which we misperceive as reason.

Wow.

( Posted by: drsoos [Member] On: October 20, 2004 )

Whipping out the SAT words drsoos?
I have to agree with drsoos. I am not sure whetehr the mis-spelled words were intentional for your point or whether it was a display of your attitude towards education. Either way I believe your point would have been taken more seriously and understood more clearly if you had taken the time to spell check your work. I, myself, am constantly riddled with typos, but the continued use of the word "now" instead of "know" makes me think this was intentional.
What differentiates us from animals? well that has been answered by numerous philosophers for thousands of years. Quite simply humans have the ability to consciously recognize our emothions and thoughts. We are the only 'animals" with the capability to build.

( Posted by: snuffystuff [Member] On: October 20, 2004 )

Overlored
I'm curious to know why your style has changed so dramatically in this piece. Yet, in your latest post, it's different again - and your knowledge of history in 'what is control (part 4)
seems too inadequate to be quite believable. Drsoos, thank you for giving me a different slant on something that's been bothering me about OL's work.
I could be totally wrong here, but hesitate to offer any further critiques yet. Naturally it's your right to ignore comments.
Paul

( Posted by: Ogg [Member] On: November 7, 2004 )





Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.


Username:
Password:
Subject:
Comment:





Login:
Password: