Post essays and advice here

<p>Let's try to help rate essays for each other? :D</p>

<p>This is the first time I've tried writing a SAT-style essay. I haven't taken the SAT yet. The prompt is from Princeton Review's Cracking the SAT 2008. </p>

<p>It goes: "Existentialist Jean Paul Sartre believed in personal freedom, holding that man is free to 'write the script' for his own life: He can blame no one else if his life is a 'poor performance.' On the other hand, William Blake and others in the Romantic movement felt that the expectations and restraints of society severely limit a person: They believed that schooling, organized religion, and other social institutions imprison a person's mind and spirit."</p>

<p>My essay: "The debate over the validity of personal freedom as opposed to the constraints of society has long existed and is still a viable debate today. There are some who believe, as existentialist Jean Paul Sartre did, that one has full control over hi slife, while there are others who agree with the Romantic notion that the institutions of society limit the individual to conformity. It is clear, however, that the latter are the ones who are limiting themselves with their lack of esteem for independent thought and individual strength.</p>

<p>"The Romantics argued that schooling, organized religion, and other social institutions imprison a person's mind and spirit, but in reality, a person's mind and spirit is not capable of being imprisoned. It is the volition of the mind to form judgment of all in a person's surrounding. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for the diversity and noncomformity that exists. For example, Martin Luther King was raised in a society which held his race to be inferior, but by his own independent thought and observation, he could concluded that the societal view was wrong.</p>

<p>"Neither is the argument that society can impose regulatory oppression of individualism correct. It is true that there are laws and societal impediments that can be contrary to an individual's will, but these are only as powerful as any established behavior of any environment. It is only the individual's belief that he cannot change things which allow the pre-established to continue unchallenged. If not, how has change occurred? Take the specific example of Ghandi, who believed injustice to exist in his own society. With the knowledge that the individual can remove limits and wrongs, he succeeded in liberating his country.</p>

<p>"Therefore, it is evident that the conclusions of Romantics like William Blake was founded upon assumptions which are easily disproved. Jean Paul Satre was wright when he stated that man is free to 'write the script' for his own life. The only necessary item for this to be possible is the belief in it. All figures of history who have overcome societal impositions are evidence of this."</p>

<p>I could see some grammatical errors as I typed it. Also, CliffsTestPrep said that I should use the first tense and personal examples, but I couldn't break my writing habits. Is it all right or should I work on changing?</p>

<p>Of course I would use Ghandi and MLK.. they're the ones that come to mind first. x_x</p>

<p>Since I tried this prompt alongside cocoyam... Please bother scoring mine if you please! :)</p>

<p>Exisentialist Paul Satre claimed that every human has claim to free choice. This is true to an extent, in that each can make his own decision. But the ramifications? These are determined by society. In reality, it is true that we are always bound by the rules of society, which determines the individuals actions by its various consequences for not conforming.</p>

<p>The first consequence of defying society's norms takes form in the enforcement of law. If someone, say, was done a great wrong and felt it his right to kill the man who wronged him in return, he could. But, then he would be jailed and likely punished by death if caught. All societies have laws to guide them, and violation of these outright defined "wrong" things to do results in punishment.</p>

<p>Then, there are limitations to behavior not officially, but socially enforced. Take, for example, homosexuality. Such sexual orientation is frequently shunned by at least a section of the population. The result can be ostracization or outright bullying. The phrase "coming out of the closet" exists because there is a natural tendency to hide homosexuality. Society's expectations and preferences can force an individual to alter his behavior in this way as well.</p>

<p>And even when society does not legally or socially punish departure from norm, behavior which isn't normal can still be punished -- automatically, as a wrong gear in a system. If a student decided to not go through school, and learn through practical experience instead, perhaps he wouldn't be jailed or ostracized. But what would happen if he were to apply to a standard job? Maybe he is just as able to execute it as any other, but the missing certificate of high school completion will ring as an automatic turnoff. A hundred years ago, such would not be the case, but that was a different society which didn't hold upon formal education as a core principle.</p>

<p>And so, although Sartre was right in that each individual can choose his own choice, he neglected to recognize that society imposes the consequences which dictate which choice will be reasonable. The famous philosopher John Locke was insightful in his description of a society as a contract between the people, to sacrifice certain freedoms for security. In legally enforced punishment, social consequences, and even automatic determents as a system, defiance of societal norm will usually not work.</p>


<p>Yeah, so I know my style wasn't that refreshing (no personal examples!). I made a couple of grammatical and spelling errors, and several sentences are awkward because I didn't know how to put it when describing my thought. Advice?</p>