This is something I’m not too fond of doing. Much in the way I wince every time I recall something awkward I did or felt, I’m reticent to discuss my past work. However, unlike that of interpersonal crap, my writing is something easier to dissect and revisit without constantly screaming in sheer agony on the inside. So anyhow, I am actually going to choose two papers I wrote recently: one is an eleven page research paper discussing econometric results and the other is a paper discussing the moral scope afforded by Kant’s deontological approach and Mill’s utilitarianism based on pleasure being equated to utility. Fascinating stuff that is not at all difficult to discuss much less craft a sensible structure. But, I find with the purely academic term paper, which I lovingly call the hellish marathon, I certainly wavered a bit towards the middle and especially the end of the paper when I feel I wrote with less ease and flow, but rather in a more industrial way where I plugged data into the sentence rather than adding a bit of compositional flair. While I am still proud of the end product, I still would’ve liked more time to truly refine the paper and ensure my voice carries through in spite of the stiffer research language I used and verb use I inherited from the days of English classes past. That verb use actually manifested itself in the writing process where I went back and rewrote the sentences that appeared in my head to avoid passive verbs and to use active verbs in their place. The question was easily a niche one about whether or not Best Buy’s size made it more difficult to compete with Amazon and other online retailers. This is a microeconomic issue and so I had to ignore many questions so I could actually provide an answer to the question in eleven pages rather than a more interesting macroeconomic question that would also answer more questions than a microeconomic question that only focuses on one company instead of multiple retail stores. Thus, my views on the subject haven’t really changed very much due to the niche nature of the research and my lack of interest in such a topic compared to the more exciting field of fiscal policy, governmental administration, and the economy as a whole which one can see in my general interest in public policy, public economics, and political economics. Now my ideas on writing certainly haven’t shifted very much except for really just confirming my lack of enthusiasm for writing a sprawling paper on something I perceive to be near meaningless in a way that doesn’t make the process too fun for me.

Now this second paper to consider was a philosophy paper which aimed to answer this prompt: “Kant suggests that the ultimate good can be expressed by a will in accord with the moral law and that right action is obeying the moral law.  If this is true then what does that argue about the scope of morality?  By contrast, utilitarianism argues that we should always maximize happiness.  What does following such a course suggest about morality’s scope?  Do you find Kantian ethics or utilitarianism more plausible as a result of this difference in scope?  Why?” Now this is very much a mouthful, but the reason I bring this up is because of the difference in the process between the research paper and this essay in particular. Normally as you can see, the way I tend to write is very informal and almost stream of consciousness with a bit of a structure. But with this essay, I actually got outside advice and proceeded to solidify my argument and cut down on sections that were unclear and referencing a depressed Danish philosopher/theologian (if you know who this is, give yourself a pat on the back for knowing someone really obscure and who I would’ve actually discussed if I answered the, fittingly enough, experience prompt), though I still referenced him at the end. I also, crucially planned out the argument more, but not like my final paper for ENG 111 which was as dead and soulless as a corporate lawyer and written in a worse and more caged style than I would have liked. I’m not salty about that. No, not at all. Anyhow, that addition of a tiny bit of planning and structure for all I know actually made a better essay because I still did most of the work and argument of the cuff in my first draft. I have no way of knowing except by having people read it. I mean it is a fascinating read and you don’t actually need to know much about Kant or Mill, but it certainly helps. In terms of changing my mind about a topic like that one, I haven’t really thought about it too much to really say I’ve massively changed my mind and I can’t say I’m still wrestling with the ideas because I’m enraptured by different philosophies that were formulated as a response to the Enlightenment and what some may call the ever creeping dominance of logic, science, and so called “objectivity” as truth. However definitions can always be argued, especially in the context of this essay as a definition different from mine could make the opposite point I made and still be valid. However, pinpointing precise definitions for certain concepts like what is good, moral, or ethical and whether all are compatible with one another at the same time is very difficult for a person to do and a fools errand to try and answer objectively. I could discuss this all day, but you may be getting a headache right about now, so I’ll stop. (If you want to read these two monstrosities, all you have to do is ask, though why you would is beyond me; you’re just making more work for yourself, but you do you man)

Before I get fruit pelted at me, I’ll wrap it up. The research paper was necessarily narrow, but kind of boring to write yet not awful to write and made me raring to inject that meta humour I love back into my writing when it’s been gone for so long. The philosophy paper on the other hand gave me a better appreciation for the drafting and organisational process and was more exciting, though this and the other essay were notably restrictive on what one could answer given the prompts. Thus, as much as, in the words of the immortal Alan Shore from Boston Legal, “words are my friends”, I must stop before we approach War and Peace word counts. Well that and it’s like 2 right now, but that’s unimportant.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.