At first, I was set on writing about Goldman and Socrates’ philosophical differences about religion. I wrote about two and a half pages, and came to a dead end. I was just basically summarizing their different ideas and I was going nowhere. Thus, I started all over with a new idea, which is my paper now, based on whether or not a citizen is ever obligated to die according to the laws of their city. I like my paper and where I am going with it so far but I know it definitely needs revisions. I’m having a hard time with the ending…should I keep it as is or make it more dramatic? I feel like the ending seems as though Socrates is maybe just trying to convince Goldman he must die, and I think it may end too abruptly. Also, I feel as though I should maybe be a bit more creative and interpret the texts in a broader light throughout my whole paper so as not to be too repetitive. I don’t want it to seem like I am just restating ideas. Any suggestions? Constructive criticism would be much appreciated!
Pingback: Josh
Pingback: eegger
Pingback: Alexander Ong