/lit/ - Literature

Post sample

>my dom who inspects my cubby for 100,000 a year

>>16710359
200 level course

Academia is death

>>16710387
You should simplify your language. Not sure how, but I see what they mean.
It reads like you are having a hard time generating and therefore explaining your ideas

>>16710399
A criticism he stated was that I gave too many ideas. He said that I ought to have focused on one instead.

>>16710332
it's verbose, I write like this when I'm not paying attention as well.

just remember that the right word is not always the most complex; the right sentence is not always rhetorically the hardest.

Right now it's easy to lose your train of thought in your work; is that a case of hard ideas or a case of unclear arguments? Let your ideas advocate themselves instead of hiding behind difficult language.

>>16710429
Thank you anon :>)

>>16710332
Hisama ketako kun?

>>16710402
i would try to cut down on the number of words, don't inflate your prose to meet word counts. like the last sentence in that sample

"the subsequent result shall be the painful termination of their life"

is a lugubrious way of saying "the result will be death" or "their actions will end in death"

>>16710387
I don’t think the language is hard. I think it can be more concise though. You could probably cut it down to five or six sentences. You should spend less time contrasting theistic and atheistic altruism and explaining what it entails. But again, I don’t think it’s that bad.

>>16710429
>I'll rewrite my post to give an example:

Your writing is convoluted, but it's not the worst thing in the world. Good writing is not always complex. The right word is sometimes simple, just as the right sentence can be in the active voice. Right now you use sentence structures that are unwarranted. One needs extraordinary circumstance to write something like, "theistic type" or "whereby."

Let your ideas advocate themselves rather than masking them with difficult language.

protip: Fully read aloud your work the morning after your first draft.

>>16710387
I got bored after 2 sentences

>>16710458
There was no outline. Just received the grade.
>>16710450
Gotcha. It's a bad habit. I will try to avoid ever reading DFW.
>>16710463
This advice is useful for future papers. Much appreciated!

>>16710463
Reading aloud is the best move. And yeah, unless you’re trying to have a specific voice and creative flair to your work (but it’s for university so you can’t really get away with that) you should skip things like “whereby”. That can work as a quick transition in a long and relatively complex sentence, but your writing in terms of structure (and, no offense, what you’re writing about) isn’t very complex.

>>16710387
I wanted to kill myself after reading the first sentence.

>>16710483
Lol. I think effortposts on this board have negatively influenced me.

>>16710387
It's clear and well structured imo. your prof got filtered. i dont think you used any overly complex word...but sometimes it is better to, for example use the definition of a word rather than the word itself. For example instead of "Psychological egoists" you could have said:

>The only possible explanation of altruism given to us by psychologists who believe that individual self-interest is the motive of all conscious action...

Which includes the dictionary definition of Egoism. Also helps to make your paper longer if you happen to require it.

>>16710387

I wouldn't consider it convoluted at all. But your writing does come across as neatly organized and you rely a lot of abstract vocabulary with lot of "isms" that makes your thoughts seem floaty and not grounded. Maybe use more physical metaphors, anecdotes, or clear explanation to flesh out your thoughts

>>16710560
Other anons have also recommended simplifying word usage. I will do that going forth.

>>16710569

I do not think "simplifying" word usage is my point, rather make your prose more evocative and rely less on abstract words. Like I said your prose isn't difficult to comprehend, it just isn't written in a very engaging way

>>16710575
Ah, got it. Thanks!

>>16710387

I wouldn't say convoluted. 'Dense' seems more appropriate, and that isn't necessarily bad. However teachers often like to rate clear and concise regurgitation rather than prosaic abilities. Reading my old papers, the best rated ones are by far the ones where I stretched the material to its utmost limit.
Your vocabulary is perhaps a bit too ... rich? I wouldn't be a great judge, being primarily francophone, to me it sounds fine.

>>16710387
Seem fine.

>>16710387
You could lose roughly 5 words from each sentence with no loss in information density. Your professor is absolutely correct.
"Only applicable to martyrs of the theistic type, who do indeed expect recompensation in the after life" could be
>applicable only to theistic martyrs who expect recompense after death.
I hope you see how much of a strained pseud you sound like.

>>16710913
I'm only 200 level desu. My writing would be better if I had more feedback like this in the past.

>>16710922
The reason you don't get feedback like this is because it's a pain to rewrite this kind of work. You're not going to get good writing tips from /lit/ by the way -- at least not for academic writing. You should go seek assistance and speak with the professor to acknowledge the need for improvement. This will probably soften future grading for you and you might get some tips on what they like to see or a link to a style guide.

>>16710530
You can always include the definition in a footnote.

>>16710530
>psychologists who believe that individual self-interest is the motive of all conscious action
This isn't who psychological egoists are. It's a philosophical position.

>>16710387
>is the fact that
>do indeed
>that which they
>subsequent result (when is a result, in the context it's used here, not subsequent?)
>termination of life (just say death)
>recompensation (should be compensation)
Stop using so many filler words. Your rhetorical questions don't need to be rhetorical. I have no idea what your second sentence means. Do the people serve the altruists or the principles? Neither make sense.
It just sounds like you're extending the length artificially. You could convey the exact same meaning in four sentences but with more punch. The slow progression is like you're explaining something to a child.

>>16711565
The second sentence means that the defining principles of altruists, like that of selflessness, exist objectively and independent of the mind. So, an altruist considers altruism to be transcendent. They don't merely act altruistically for some inward purpose, but rather do so for the good in itself (think of Essentialism). Anyways I get what you're saying. Looking back, it is a bit cringy. My whole paper wasn't exactly like this, but I have a general tendency to be unnecessarily verbose (to the detriment of grammatical consistency). I appreciate your feedback.

>>16710387
I liked it

>>16710387
I would not call that convoluted. It's wordy, perhaps, and maybe a paragraph break is warranted, but the grammar is not hard to follow and neither is the argument. Your professor probably got to your paper late, was exhausted, and found it difficult to wade through your dense paragraphs.

So I would say they are not convoluted, but could perhaps be better structured so you don't take so many words to make what is essentially an opening statement for your argument.

>>16710387
Well written and to the point. I honestly expected much worse. Your professor is a brainlet coper.

>>16710922
This is how you find out, so don't be ashamed. Just learn from it and try to evolve your style. I used to write in a very similar way because it impressed my public education teachers, but I got a lot of pointed feedback from my lower division professors, exactly like yours, that helped me be more concise. Though if all they wrote was "too convoluted" that'd be more frustratingly vague than helpful, and would just undermine my confidence. Did the prof at least write anything else?

>>16710387
You have nothing on Hegel. Don't worry.

>>16710939
>You should go seek assistance and speak with the professor to acknowledge the need for improvement. This will probably soften future grading for you and you might get some tips on what they like to see or a link to a style guide.
Definitely do this OP. Assuming your prof isn't an asshole they should respond favorably if you approach them like this. I've usually had good experiences talking with my profs about my essays.

>>16711585
Nothing else on the actual writing style. I threw in about 6 arguments in my paper because I don't like unnecessarily extending simple arguments, but that wasn't what he wanted of us.
>>16711591
I'm actually reading a brief intro to Hegel atm, but I prefer Schopenhauer's ontology.

>>16711603
Yes, and even the assholes are usually flattered.

>>16710463
>Let your ideas advocate themselves rather than masking them with difficult language
you should do the exact opposite if you want to succeed in academia

>>16710387
>martyrs of the theistic type
theistic martyrs or even just martyrs will do
>is the fact that this
'is that this'. 'the fact that' is clunky
>recompensation
compensation will do
>painful termination of their life
a bit wordy. maybe 'their painful death' would be better
>whereby
in/by which would be better. profs tend not to like pompous language (unless it's their own). other than that, it's fine. i wouldn't call it "convoluted", it just needs some trimming.

>>16711612
Obfuscation only works if you manage to cultivate a mystique of inscrutable brilliance and develop a small cult of personality around yourself. Then everybody just assumes your ideas are too titanic to express simply and the more convoluted your arguments the more celebrated you become.

The alternate, writing with succinct clarity, only brings fame if the clarity reveals poignant ideas and novel insight. Being clear is of little benefit if the only thing revealed by clarity is your own mediocrity.

>>16710332
Write like a pompous faggot AFTER you become a professor, not before.

>>16710387
It reads like you translated this from another language.

>>16710387
>>16711574
Martyrs hold moral principles to a greater importance than the self, they sacrifice the individual for the transcendent. According to Psychological Egoists, this apparent altruism is explained by self-interest, the actual motivation being the brief pleasure felt by doing "good". This argument holds for theistic martyrs who expect recompense after death but does not account for the atheist who jumps on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers, expecting no pleasure in return. Extreme altruists, regardless of religious belief, do their moral duty in full understanding of the potentially painful and fatal consequences.

>>16710402
Fucking Anglos are the spawn of hell and need to return there! Bugmen, NPC's ALL OF THEM! Fuck! The struggle is real!

>>16712326
I prefer the original desu

>>16710387
It's certainly not convoluted, but it does read like you're trying too hard to reach a word count in that paragraph. About half the sentences in that paragraph are fine, like the opening; some make little sense, like the second one; and some sentences can do with just a little less, like the one with "the fact that" ("the fact" in that sentence can be removed with no negative effect on the sentence, and would improve it. It's wordy, and can be a headache to read). Remember, you're writing a 200 level essay, and this prof probably has to read about a trillion 200 level essays at a time, so an essay that's a bit clunky and wordy is a drag. Next time, worry more about having a sound argument than stretching a paragraph in an unnatural way to reach a word count. Basically, just be more concise.

>>16710387
it's good

>>16710387
You could try speaking out your ideas, as in dictation, on a recording device. Listen to how you would vocalise your ideas a couple times. It might help you.

>>16710387
Wanna know how I can tell your a zoomer? Your shit is jumpy and all over the place, you can't make a concise argument too save any attempt of an argument you make in this excerpt. Pick a topic and stick to it faggot.

>>16710387
https://voca.ro/17kvPIu0kl0J

>>16710389
academia is better in the imagination
I'm a virtual academic.

>>16712924
To be fair, what more is there to really say about the topics at hand?

>>16710387
i really don't like 'the fact that'. guilty of using it often myself. it just doesn't sound nice. i try to avoid it.

>>16710387
it's better as a play, as in
you should become a playwright
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77ixWBUqSNU

>>16713456
Brilliant performance, anon. It's surreal to hear someone narrate my garbage.

>>16710387
Not bad for a 200 level course. My only criticism is that you use far too many words. A few have remarked that you should use the word compensation for your strange hybrid 'recompensation' but you could also use the head end of the thing, recompense, if you like that better

>>16711577
>I would not call that convoluted. It's wordy, perhaps, and maybe a paragraph break is warranted, but the grammar is not hard to follow and neither is the argument.

I agree. The language is more workmanlike than felicitous, but I don't think "convoluted" is accurate.

>>16710387
A theistic altruist may begin with the pragmatism of recompensation in the afterlife, but to become consummate he must not care for reciprocity, and do everything out of the goodness of his heart rather than a God's promises; not because the promises are dubious, but because the man must transform himself. As for them "willingly doing their moral duty," one might call such a thing stupidity if not recompensated, but I will not do so. It is the same impulse that the religious man cultivates so that his good acts are impulsive and sublime, and not merely self-interested. And no, they do not necessarily "recognize" their moral duty, it might actually be instinctive.

>>16713637
I really like your writing. Fair critique as well.

>>16713651
Your writing wasn't difficult to read, man; but if you want to tone down the language because it's getting in the way of a good grade, you need to try and distill what you wrote and forget the fancy, technical words. You argued that egoists believe altruism is merely self-interested because acts of altruism benefit both the altruist and the recipient. However, you said, this is only applicable to theistic altruists, who expect something from God in return for their deeds. Other forms of altruism are instinctive, so they are less consciously self-serving. Rather than serving to increase some prize in the future, they serve to return to emotional equilibrium (you are distressed by the sight of a homeless man, so you give him money, without expecting him or a God to return the favor).

>>16713496
*bows*

>>16712111
I watched a vid of Zizek talking about the same topic in a more concise way. But as always he went about it through an anecdote.

>>16710387
r8 my rewr8

>>16714654
Shit argument

>>16710332
kill him.

>>16714654
Looks good. Unfortunately, there wasn't any option to submit an outline for feedback. Looking back, I put in good effort and my points were strong (I also talked about how the feeling of reward isn't proof of PE, that PE can't be verified as it only speculates on the intrinsic motives of extrinsic actions, that evolution favors altruism for the good of the collective species, and lastly a study addressing the possibility for altruism against common critiques).

>>16710530
great take, first thing I thought, this guy legitimately writes well & I'd love to read more

>>16714699
You're making me blush, anon.

>>16714704
link more?

>>16714710
sure

>>16714717

-"intrinsic motives..."
great point, this argument about altruism as ultimately selfish has been around for way too long, despite other fags on this thread I felt like paragraph1 succinctly refutes it

-"manifestation of the collectivity"
this is not only a fantastic point but you put it well too. I remember reading similar stuff from David Barash on kinship ethics and Trivers on reciprocal altruism, but I think you put the idea together in a far more enjoyable way than either.

Not only do I think your professor is retarded and that you should ignore him, it makes me glad to see people on /lit/ that can actually write!

>>16714776
Feels good. This thread has helped me figure out how I can improve while also not making me feel like shit. This is a great board.

>>16714799
for real, the best on 4chan by far

although honestly /out/ can be pretty fun sometimes

>>16714717
that's better than your first sample because it lacks a lot of the filler (there's still a bit: "attempt to provide a speculated and unverifiable explanation" is just "speculating")

>>16714717
It's good man. Not dating there isn't room for improvement, there are lots of good suggestions on this thread, but the argument is laid out very clearly in a nice, logical, stepwise manner. All I can imagine is that your prof thinks your good and is pushing to get more out of you

>>16714679
i wasn't make a new argument dummy.

>>16711549
kek

>>16714717
what if le psychological egoism itself is an evolutionary mechanism? i'm talking about only as it relates to altruism. what if complex chemical reactions evolved in the pleasure centers of the brain to sate the individual need for self-fulfillment, and as a consequence, enhance the fitness of both the tribe and individual?

>>16714935
I'm not sure about that. It's reductionistic in that the complex inner-workings of what drives our behaviors becomes simplified. In Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, people with mental illnesses (depression, anxiety, ocd, ptsd) can literally change their brain wiring through sheer will. When you desire something pleasurable, like food, porn, or drugs, you're still able to control these temptations. When people become martyrs, they may incur great pain and distress on themselves for the benefit of others. Psychological Egoism doesn't fully explain these anomalies. It makes greater sense to assume that evolution positively selects for altruism as it allows the species to develop collectively, which in turn helps its constituents. When people die for others, they do so for the benefit of the greater good. Psychological Egoism is the inferior explanation. It's also harmful as a belief.

>>16710387
the topic is gay as fuck no wonder

>>16715011
Yeah, I hate ethics. Metaphysics would be great if it weren't for the fact that my uni is Analytic. Looking at past philosophers is a no-no. I literally just want to learn about Kant, Bergson, and Deleuze.

>>16714654
Hi I'm back. Yeah this is much more readable.

>"One explanation for this behaviour, is provided by..."
You don't need the comma here, and you have extra commas elsewhere. This is a stylistic mistake, usually saved for final draft editing.

>rhetorical questions
Since you're writing for academia, rhetorical devices such as questions are inappropriate. Try to remember the last published academic paper you read that extensively used rhetorical questions. Again, without extraordinary circumstance you usually won't find them.

Good job OP.

>>16715043
That wasn't me, but I posted a second sample >>16714717

>>16711612
>wanting to succeed in academia

>>16710387
Your professor is retarded.

>>16710387
It's not bad. Look up Les caves du vatican by Gide for an exploration of the other of the coin you're discussing here.

>>16712924
Shut the fuck up millennial faggot, you have nothing to contribute.

>>16714935
>what if complex chemical reactions evolved in the pleasure centers of the brain to sate the individual need for self-fulfillment, and as a consequence, enhance the fitness of both the tribe and individual?
dying doesn't do enhance your material sense of self-preservation. dumb argument.

>>16710332
Tell him his brain is devoluted.

>>16715208
it doesn't have to be dying brainlet. it can be any altruistic action. and i wasn't even talking about self-preservation.

>>16714972
ok i see that. was just trying to see if there was a way to reconcile both.

>>16715043
yea that wasn't op, i was just doing a rewrite cuz i was bored. wish this board had tags to id users on threads. shit can get confusing.

>extra commas
i find that i do this a lot. need to curb this habit for sure.

>>16710387

Your "prose" is fine, but the concepts aren't treated well. For example, a "martyr" is someone who dies for their religious beliefs. An "altruist" is someone who acts with the interests of others in mind. You conflate and mix the two pretty badly in your first three sentences: "I listed martyrs" "these altruists" "thus altruistic martyrs" -- that's a confused procession.
> The only possible explanation of altruism given to us by Psychological Egoists is that the altruist is motivated by the consequences of 'good' actions, whereby any brief pleasure is felt enough to constitute self-interest
This doesn't make sense. Altruism isn't possible on the Pscyhological Egoist view; it has to be that there just isn't altruism, and instead "altruism" just involves delusion about reasons.
> The problem with that explanation is the fact that this argument is only applicable to martyrs of the theistic type
Martyrs or altruists? Super confusing. Why would a Psychological Egoist doubt the motives of martyrs? They might expect heavenly rewards, so it's in line with Psychological Egosim; but it isn't in line with altruism, and you haven't said anything about what an "altruistic martyr" might be. Is that someone who acts on the basis of others because their religion commands them to? That's pretty confused, and doesn't really align with altruism at all since the actual basis for their actions is just the religious command, even if the thing they are commanded to do is in the interests of others. (That's like saying if someone held me at gunpoint and forced me to give you money, I'm acting "altruistically under duress" -- but of course I'm not acting altruistically at all, even if I give you a big chunk of cash.)
It goes on and on like that. You are confusing so much. You are probably super young, and sometimes it helps to see exactly what the critic of your paper sees so that you can recognize your own habitual conflations. My advice is to separate the terms out carefully, ask what the REAL connection is between them (if any) and see if you can trace those connections (or lack of connections) better.

>>16715450
>"I listed martyrs" "these altruists" "thus altruistic martyrs" -- that's a confused procession.
Not at all. Not all altruists are martyrs. All martyrs are altruists. You didn't see the four premises above the sample, but I used martyrs as an example of altruists who act without personal benefit.
>This doesn't make sense. Altruism isn't possible on the Pscyhological Egoist view
The phenomenon of altruism is explained by Psychological Egoists to be self-motivated. I used the example of martyrs to put a pin in the argument for self-motivation.
>artyrs or altruists? Super confusing. Why would a Psychological Egoist doubt the motives of martyrs? They might expect heavenly rewards, so it's in line with Psychological Egosim; but it isn't in line with altruism, and you haven't said anything about what an "altruistic martyr" might be. Is that someone who acts on the basis of others because their religion commands them to? That's pretty confused, and doesn't really align with altruism at all since the actual basis for their actions is just the religious command, even if the thing they are commanded to do is in the interests of others. (That's like saying if someone held me at gunpoint and forced me to give you money, I'm acting "altruistically under duress" -- but of course I'm not acting altruistically at all, even if I give you a big chunk of cash.)
It goes on and on like that. You are confusing so much. You are probably super young, and sometimes it helps to see exactly what the critic of your paper sees so that you can recognize your own habitual conflations. My advice is to separate the terms out carefully, ask what the REAL connection is between them (if any) and see if you can trace those connections (or lack of connections) better.
Okay so I already explained the first part above. All A is B but not all B is A. Psychological Egoists would doubt the possibility for altruism, so they explain acts of martyrdom as being self-interested. I argued that this doesn't make any sense. Religious martyrs can expect reward, but atheistic martyrs can't. They give their life away and that's that. Honestly, I think you should reread the paragraph. It could have been edited better but my points are going over your head.

>>16710387
It's really really good. Nobel tier. I could feel my eyes welling up as I read. You have a gift.

>>16710387
It's full of extraneous words and is stilted as fuck while also somehow totally devoid of any style, a humorless slog if I'm honest.

>>16710387
>The problem with that explanation is the fact that this argument is
This is just a high-school level essay buffed up with college-level terms and concepts - many such cases.

>>16710387
I think its fine

>>16710387
>religious altruists are hypocrites, atheistic altruists are the real shit!
You are a retard fedora pseud and your prof should slap you

>>16710387
It isn't convoluted. The sentences are simple and short. Your writing is, however, badly structured and difficult to follow.

>>16717691
You genuinely misunderstand. The motives of religious martyrs can be explained, but those of non-religious belief can't. This means the possibility of altruism is possible against Psychological Egoism.

>>16718593
>The motives of religious martyrs can be explained
So what? That doesn't make them selfish. Do you honestly believe that religious people only do good deeds to get themselves a nice spot the afterlife? That's the most fedora tier shallow take on religion possible

>>16719488
>Do you honestly believe that religious people only do good deeds to get themselves a nice spot the afterlife?
What other motivation could one possibly have in a cosmic, all-encompassing moral system based on punishment and reward? Saying otherwise is just an excuse so you don't look like a piece of shit

>>16719580
>>16719488
The religious person would ideally want both themselves and others to get into heaven, and they would be good both out of natural empathy and because it was the religiously right thing to do. The motivations don't exclude each other.

>>16719488
Look, I'm not saying religious martyrs aren't altruistic. I ALREADY SAID THAT ALL MARTYRS ARE ALTRUISTIC. However, the Psychological Egoist can explain away religious martyrs as being motivated by reward, thought the same can't be said for atheistic ones. Are you retarded? I made this pretty clear.

>>16719616
*though the same

>>16710332
A fool admires complexity; a genius admires simplicity.

>>16720991
Tell that to Plotinus, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Deleuze. I get it, I can simplify my writing, but philosophy is a complex topic.