| Carter also discusses phlobe (last time) in relation to contemporary religion in America, and this is where I tend to disagree with him. He relates how the three major monotheistic religions each contain doctrines of morality relating to the Word of God. He almost incessantly refers back to a claim about integrity being a sort of wholeness, and here he relates it to obedience to God. He seems to suggest that atheists and non-Jews, Muslims, and Christians are inherently incapable of morality. He intimates that even the most secular integrity, no matter what its motivation, is somehow rooted in the aforementioned religious tradition. An indispensable part of integrity, Carter says, is a balanced exhibition of honesty. He says that one can be honest and not necessarily demonstrate integrity. Simply stating one's opinion firmly without the sufficient moral action to augment the assertion is far from integral in Carter's sense of the world. He writes, however, that this is not the most important aspect; it is far outweighed [passive voice] Again, don't care... by his precious first criterion of integrity: discerning right from wrong. A powerful contention addressed [passive voice] No, that is definitely not... far too late in the text, is that "morally committed citizens...must fight their way through life..." (165) Carter acknowledges that it is quite often difficult for one to pursue his or her moral convictions in the manner he outlined, but true integrity lies only within those that do so. According to Stephen L. Carter, one can demonstrate integrity by announcing to the world and the Internal Revenue Service that he/she is cheating on his/her taxes out of protest. As the text progresses, I find myself more at odds with some of Carter's contentions, though they are presented in such a way as to mask their outlandishness, as with the previous example regarding the IRS. Indeed, he makes far too broad a generalization that the United States is a country primarily interested in conformity, which makes realization of the second and third principles of integrity rather difficult. He claims our desire of social acceptance overshadows our desire to do what we believe to be right, with only a few shining examples to the contrary, such as the civil rights movement. A great tactic he uses is to sporadically include [SI] That means Split Infinitive. We're dealing with one of them fanatics here. I'll get the tranquilizer... words that may be unfamiliar to some readers. If they are truly interested in the work, they will find a suitable place to stop reading, and then they will go enlighten themselves to the new word. This only happened to me once with, oddly enough, neologism, a new word or new definition of an existing word. Again, this occurred rather late in the reading, but it did its job. In suggesting corruption as the antithesis to integrity, Carter ends the bulk of his argumentative discourse with an adequately engaging and overall well-written style. He makes it clear where his ideas come from, and then explains each in detail, consistently discussing each one throughout the text. It is also a twist to read a narrative on integrity from a lawyer, but stranger things have happened. [Conclusion?] Yeah, looks like I'm done Suggested Grade: A- [Nice try] Apparently not nice enough... |
| [Summary] Yeah, I know. Thought I'd pretend to have read it. |
| [?] |
| Final Comments: "Lucas: Some of your ideas in here are good. Just some? However, they get lost in both your sarcastic inappropriate tone and your attempts at being clever. Now that's below the belt... I understand you are frusterated (yeah she did that) by many of the assignments in this class, but needless offensive comments that could upset certain audiences are not necessary. Says you. Actually I loathe all the assignments... Furthermore, there are times in your argument where you merely summarize, or get off topic. However, for the most part, you tended to stick to the topic (though there is no real thesis to indicate this)." D (-6 days late) = F There was supposed to be a second reader as part of our portfolio or something like that, another faculty member, but I doubt there was time and I suspect my teacher wrote the following herself. It was, after all in her handwriting... 2nd Reader: Addresses some interesting observations but undermines them w/ judgemental & offensive comments. Improper tone, and not much real support or development. |