I Can Read... kind of

My Big Question

I have strong with faith in my God through Christianity. I have a strong set of morals and goals for life on Earth to get to heaven based on this said faith. But my big question is for those who don't have a strong faith like I do. What is our purpose on Earth? If you believe in no greater power in this world, then where does morality come into play? Why even try to follow the rules or do good in life if you don't believe in a place after life on Earth? I guess my main question is: If there is no life after Earth and no greater power, then why even put effort into being a moral person?

Another more direct question I have: How will the college experience be for me since I am afflicted with Autoimmune disease, Asthma, and Teetsi Syndrome?
       
What causes autoimmune diseases? Will they ever be able to cure it completely? I know they can manage it with diet, medication, blood transfusions, and radiation.

Essay #2 Montaigne/Austen

First I'd like to apologize for taking this amount of extended time to post this essay. I've been working all weekend and after school and had to pick and choose which homework assignments to accomplish. Fret not though! I shall post it now.


           My interpretation of Wallace's quote from "Good Old Neon" is that the mind computes ideas and theories too quickly and in such an unimaginable feat that when we try to express it through our words we can barely reach the surface of all our mind is capable of illustrating.  I believe this accepts Montaigne's style of writing because Montaigne tends to switch and skip around from one idea to the next to attempt and capture the beautifulness his mind is creating. He approaches his technique with a sense of fearlessness to judgment because I believe he has this itch to present his opinions just as magnificently as his mind creates them. It is because of this that I use Montaigne as a perfect example of Wallace's theory that proves it correct. Our words can never quite catch up to the glory that is our conscience.
           I think Jane Austen and Montaigne have completely different styles. While Montaigne adopted a free style of chasing his ideas around his mind and capturing some incredible ideas, Austen ha her idea and works towards making it clear and structured. Both ways carry high levels of success though different. Austen fixates on an idea and strives to make it complete and understandable with proper structure and simplicity. Whereas Montaigne throws structure out the door and obsesses over writing down his perfect description of a point he stumbles upon.
          In conclusion, Montaigne attempts to disprove Wallace's theory while leading a perfect example of it. He has some extraordinary points and opinions that he captured in the depths of his fast-paced mind. Austen, on the other hand, took the tidbit of a suggested theory from her mind and built on it with structure, not quite reaching the full power of the beautiful recesses of her consciousness.

My Opinion Isn't a Right

After reading "Right To Your Opinion" I was given the words to express my feelings towards ending and argument with the phrase "I'm entitled to my opinion". Since the definition of entitlement means a second party holds an obligation towards your entitlement. This concludes that ending an argument with this phrase basically is the person involved giving up on the argument because he or she can't refute the previous claim.

The article also mentioned how most people enter an argument with no intention of changing their mind. If neither party in an argument enters with an open mind then the discussion  is going nowhere and is essentially pointless. The better conclusion can not be reached if persons involved aren't willing to 'lose' the debate.