— Marcus Aurelius (via youngfolksociety)
(Source: absea, via youngfolksociety)
“The Red Violin” Writing Assignment: What can we learn about history by studying objects and artifacts?
Evidence for historical events can take different forms: old songs, spoken words, or maybe letters on a page. What makes physical objects or artifacts such compelling evidence for history is that it is the most concrete form of evidence available, pun intended. Opinions in personal accounts will inevitably change over time because of bias, but it would take someone intentionally altering a physical object for it to communicate something untrue. Its existence is unarguable. Here’s an example of how it stands up to another form of evidence.
Let’s compare the power of two examples of evidence: spoken account to physical evidence. If my friend come to me and tells me that she saw a unicorn prance through her yard, I probably wouldn’t believe her. She may have very well seen the unicorn and touched its magical horn, but her account doesn’t do very much to convince me that what she saw was real. However, if I was to see the unicorn myself and touch its shimmering pelt, or even so, if she were to bring me its severed horn, I would probably believe her. This is because physical evidence is stronger evidence than spoken word (unless we were both on LSD, in which case, the validity of anything we see or hear should be called into question).
The same applies to any kind of historical object or artifact. I’ve never been to Paris, so how do I know that the Eiffel Tower exists? All of the people who have ever told me about it could have been lying. All of the pictures I have seen could have been photoshopped (while photographs are a form of physical evidence, they are very easily manipulated to be false evidence). But if I were to fly to France and stand under the Eiffel Tower or climb its stairs, I would be unreasonable to think that it doesn’t exist.
The situation, however, is a little more complicated. What if, for example, someone was to bring me a small piece of that Eiffel Tower? Is this sufficient evidence for me to believe that it exists? Not necessarily. Someone could have just fashioned a piece of metal and said it was from the Eiffel Tower (people do this on Ebay all the time: Lindsey Lohan ate half this bagel; cough up $50). If someone were to show me a Skoda M1909 machine gun and say that World War I happened, I might still want more evidence (of which there is plenty). But I would be more likely to believe someone showing me a physical machine gun than someone who simply says “World War I happened.” Another example: if someone were to say, “I’ve been to El Dorado,” I would say “Pffffft.” But if they flashed me a golden doubloon, I would be inclined to listen. If they were to take me there, I would believe beyond reasonable doubt. In essence, the more physical objects there are to support a claim, the stronger the evidence.
i don’t understand why people put spaces between a word and a comma, that’s not how it works
I don’t understand why people put a comma where a semicolon (or period) should be; this is how it works.
(Source: cu-rls)
The strong effects of companionship on the quality of experience suggest that investing energy in relationships is a good way to improve life.
Please read the following sentence:
Because I was not born into a rich family, I have no idea how, in particular, those who have always been rich differ from me.
I think that this is a bad sentence. I’ve written up a few reasons why I feel this way.
Reason #1: Distracting beginning
The sentence’s primary subject (in bold) is halfway through the sentence.
Because I was not born into a rich family, I have no idea how, in particular, those who have always been rich differ from me.
This does not usually hurt a sentence, but in this case, having the subject here gives it a kind of stuttering entrance. It makes the read think about an action the subject already performed before introducing the subject’s main action; it makes the reader have to juggle a little. Writing should make readers feel like they are being spoon-fed. In most cases, these kinds of details should precede the subject only if they are something that is obvious or given. This detail would sound better at the end of the sentence.
I have no idea how, in particular, those who have always been rich differ from me because I was not born into a rich family.
Reason #2 and #3: Crucial flow is broken by a descriptor used incorrectly
The descriptive phrase “in particular” breaks the flow of the action being performed in a crucial portion of the sentence, making it sound choppy.
In addition, the phrase “in particular” describes the word “how,” which in turn serves to describe an action. The problem with this is that the phrase “in particular” is solely meant to describe nouns. This can be resolved by turning it into an adverb…
I have no idea how, particularly, those who have always been rich differ from me because I was not born into a rich family.
…or by placing it by the appropriate noun in the form of an adjective.
I have no particular idea how those who have always been rich differ from me because I was not born into a rich family.
We can solve both problems if we put it by the appropriate noun. YAY!
Reason #4: The sentence sounds like it’s going in a loop
The subject of the main clause is also the object of the secondary clause. In other words, the sentence sounds a little like this: “I feel this way because something did this certain thing to me.” It would sound more clear if the subject of the main clause was also the subject of the secondary clause. In other words: “I feel this way because I did this certain thing to something.” The result:
I have no particular idea how I differ from those who have always been rich because I was not born into a rich family.
Another explanation for this is that shorter subjects sound nicer than longer subjects. ”I differ from…” sounds nicer than “Those who have always been rich differ from…”
Reason #5: Its verb phrase still sounds funny…
This is because the action being performed has been nominalized into the verb phrase “to have an idea…” It would sound better if it were converted into the clearer verb “to know”. The verb is more appropriate in this situation. Oh, and get rid of that “particular” entirely. It has sounded funny from the beginning. The result:
I do not know how I differ from those who have always been rich because I was not born into a rich family.
That’s much better.
I’ve never posted song lyrics before, but this song really deserves credit for being beautiful.
Polish Girl by Neon Indian
Listen to it at the same time!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo6ZaCTqxwM
“It’s been at least another year
And still I haven’t got the chance to say
Always rolling off the tongue
Never said but nearly sung about a million ways
Every photograph and story
Trickled through the lengthy web of friend
I overthought but understood
Distant look but looking good
And not the other way
But you fail to remember
But you fail to remember
Do I still cross your mind?
Your face still distorts the time
Do I still cross your mind?
Your face still distorts the time
With heat struck afternoons long through
Those idle dreams go back to you
Was this only in my head
Just like most things go misread
When overthought “
