"The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar."
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Human civilization has come ahead a long distance in the field of self-knowledge. Take for example the prehistoric times where humans used to depend completely on nature for their existence. During those times, humans used to learn by observing and drawing conclusions. Slowly humans started clasifying knowledge as one they already know and one they need to know. This classification helped them save time and resources over knowing something which has already been discovered earlier by other humans.
For the same reason primariliy, I do not agree completely with the author's statement of rejecting the familiar to gain self knowledge. There are numerous examples of situations where adopting the author's recommendation would be disadvantageous. Consider for example an employee working in a factory to assemble an automobile. If the employee tries to do all the steps of assembling the automobile without utilizing any familiar knowledge, then imagine the loss incurred on part of the employer due to time lost in individual steps of assembling the automobile. This may be somewhat beneficial on part of the employee in knowing the nuances of component processes, but will greatly undermine his capability as an employee.
Another example of a disadvantageous situation is a scientist trying to invent something new or propose a new theory. If the scientist gos on trying to boost his self-knowledge by rejecting the familiar, then the scientist will end up nowhere as the theories have already been proved by utlizing abundant resources and precious time. On the other hand, take for example Galileo's proof of Copernicus' theory of earth revolving around the sun, done primarily by rejecting the familiar and disproving the same. These situations are however rare and cannot be considered as sufficient to postulate the author's recommendation.
On the flipside, a student must learn how to reject the familiar and build up on his or her self-knowledge. This is highly required by succeeding in the student's further endeavors as it builds up steadily the potential and acumen of the student.
Thus, in general, the author's statement cannot be completely relied upon to build up self-knowledge. But on rare occasions like the ones described above, rejecting the fa
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-03 | adnan_3082 | 70 | view |
| 2019-10-03 | msadat97 | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-17 | Lonewolf_97 | 50 | view |
| 2019-09-09 | ritvii | 50 | view |
| 2019-08-29 | sunandaroy | 50 | view |
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 33
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 66
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor. 50
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of movie-rental stores."Because of declining profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten movie-rental stores. Raising prices is not a good opti 73
- "The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar."Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppo 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 68, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...liy, I do not agree completely with the authors statement of rejecting the familiar to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 197, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...amples of situations where adopting the authors recommendation would be disadvantageous...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 598, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nsidered as sufficient to postulate the authors recommendation. On the flipside, a...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the student. Thus, in general, the authors statement cannot be completely relied u...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, then, thus, for example, in general, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1930.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 360.0 442.535393258 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36111111111 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12495802441 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.563888888889 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 704.065955056 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5668107147 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.222222222 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.125374883697 0.243740707755 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0384427308687 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414880935668 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0626259765145 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0225666806898 0.0667264976115 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.