I mentioned in my proposal that I would write from Goldman’s perspective because I disagree with her more, and that makes me more able to think critically about her ideas and stuff. I was worried that if I wrote from Socrates’ perspective, my way of thinking would be too close enough to his, that I’d mix up stuff I think he would say with stuff I would say. When I wrote my proposal I also thought that we were only writing from either the position of Goldman OR Socrates. It didn’t occur to me that a dialogue has to be between 2 people. Yeah, I’m stupid, I know haha. When I got to writing the actual rough draft, I ended up doing a Socrates-style interrogation, but with Goldman being the person doing the interrogation. Again, I did that because I feel more comfortable with how Socrates does his thinking.
I was originally going to write my essay on the government’s affect on both crime and laziness, but I realized that I wanted to focus my essay more and chose just to write about its affect on crime. Once I’d made that decision, I just kind of wrote the whole draft in one go the night before it was due. I took my time with it and it all flowed pretty naturally from there. I also just added the setting in after writin everything else, so there wasn’t any elaborate incorporation of the setting the way there was in the example essay we looked at. I’d already done a dialogue in the same Socratic method for philosophy and this dialogue is really similar to the one I’d written before (which was weird, because I didn’t remember writing it at all and I had to go back and find it after writing the rough draft to compare it. I took that class my junior year of high school). When I write a draft that I like, I usually dont’t make a whole lot of edits, and I don’t think I need to make a whole lot of changes to this draft.
Pingback: Jerri
Pingback: passionatefighter17