Actuality v. Reality: An Essay Upon More than Worlds.

.

What if in actuality we are the center of the universe? since we have so little intelligence, we have no way of knowing. What if there is no grador scale of science? what if it's all a blind perception?

I'm not making a stance in saying your wrong, but you contradict yourself if you say actuality is the true state of the universe, but we are just little specks of dust within it. Then you claim to know what actuality is.

My advice, when talking about matters so deep, don't make a stance, just offer a question.


but what do I know?........in all actuality

How are the words "actuality" and "reality" differentiated? They are used so interchangeabely that they are seemingly synonymous.

I can't really give you more on this without going into a debate, which isn't the purpose of a critique. Develop you ideas into a longer piece, and yes don't be afraid to finish with a question and leave it to the reader to come to a conclusion (if you do your job right they come to the conclusion you want them to).

Rubric

mmm.
thanks.

this was actually a persuasive philosophical essay for my honors english class.

For a persuasive essay, I have very little idea of what you're talking about. It isn't that I haven't understood the words you've written, but it just seems to be a string of individual arguments that don't progress towards a single point. In short, what am I supposed to be persuaded to think? ^_^

Let's look at your title, first of all. "An Essay Upon More than Worlds" Did you intend "words" in place of "worlds"? Second (assuming you did mean words?), how do you intend for people to take "an essay upon more than words"? Is this supposed to mean that the essay, unlike others, will be meaningful, or that you'll be talking about something of greater importance than just the differences between actuality and reality? Especially in an essay, the title is of great importance. If I'm confused at the title, there's little hope for me understanding the rest of the piece, and if the point of the essay is that I agree with you by the end, understanding it first is a must!

I am in agreement with Rubric; I think you need to expand this so that all the ideas are fully developed. The paragraphs are very short and don't really go into any one subject in and of themselves but rather they seem like topic sentences introducing a larger argument. If you haven't already, making an outline or a concept web would probably be very helpful (I know that I always find them to be so!). I think a big reason for this confusion is your focus more on how the words sound than what they're saying. There are certain techniques used, such as sentence fragments and one-word sentences, etc. that are useful in their own right, but when combined with an already confusing text, are not as useful as they could be.

In terms of writing in general, there are two things you can do right now to make this a hundred times more fluent. They might sound a little silly at first, but I swear they work!:

(1) Make sure you don't overuse words. In the first sentence alone, some version of "real" is used three times. That is a *lot*. After a while, it makes it sound like you're talking in circles, and things don't really make sense any more.

(2) Eliminate vague pronouns. Look at the second paragraph in particular.

Said people use it to rationalize their existence and confirm to themselves that they are their own master, when, in actuality, they aren't.

See all the pronouns that don't really connect to anyone? What is the "it" talked about at the beginning of the sentence? Who are the "said people" that are supposedly rationalizing? These people and things need to be clearly established (this is a good place to add meat to your opening paragraph) before they can be referenced with pronouns.

(3) Develop a thesis and reference it throughout your argument. At first glance, it appears that your main idea, the point that you're trying to make and the idea you're trying to persuade readers to follow, is "The truth of reality is that there is no reality." Make sure you continue this thought! Introduce the things you're going to talk about in the first paragraph and make sure you follow up with them later in the essay, tying everything back to that first thesis.You want to make sure that everyone understands what you're talking about and why you're talking about it so that it doesn't sound like they're hearing unrelated information ^_^

This is indeed an interesting topic and one that I think could turn into a lovely essay.
Happy writing!

Another thing that can be very good in persuasive essays is the use of sources. If you can show that there are like minded people then it really demonstrates that the ideas you try to express are logical. For this particular essay I would suggest researching the psychologist Carl Rogers. In a way he suggested that there is one main reality which each individual interprets differently. Not exactly what you were saying I know, but it's in that same vein of a multi-layered existence consisting of things we perceive v.s. things beyond our understanding. Also, I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I didn't really grasp the connection between our inability to be our masters and the existence of an actuality/reality. Try to elaborate if you would (assuming I'm not just being dense).
Outside of that though I really enjoyed your essay. It makes you think about these sorts of things which is always fun, and you put out some intriguing ideas. Now just run with them.

Nolan wrote:The truth of reality, in all realness, is that there is no reality. Sure, sometimes we might think we know what's going on, but, in actuality, we haven't the slightest clue.

This is the most blatant contradiction in logic, because you say that "we haven't the slightest clue," and then proceed to tell us "what's going on." If we don't have the slightest clue, how do you have the slightest clue about us not having the slightest clue or of any thing else mentioned in this essay? Also, where are your arguments? All this essay provides is conclusions. Without support, speculations on a subjective reality crumble. I'm not even so certain which you're trying to prove--a subjective reality, or an objective reality of which we know nothing (as all knowledge contains a measure of uncertainty?). Also, calling people who believe in an objective reality are not going to enjoy it when you suggest that they are weak-minded. Offenses are not persuasive. I'm also confused about the last bit, suggesting that we are trivial in comparison with the rest of the universe? What does this have to do with objectivity/subjectivity?

Nolan wrote:Said people use it to rationalize their existence and confirm to themselves that they are their own master, when, in actuality, they aren't. We have many masters, but there is not one of us that is our own master, or another's master. We can pretend to ourselves that we control everything we do, and even some of what others do, but we don't. Not in the least, tiniest, most minuscule bit.

This paragraph reminds me of the philosophy called determinism, which states that reality is entirely determined by the causality of events (i.e., if one knew the positions of all the particles in the universe at any given time, they could predict the future or gain a 100% clear picture of the past, with the absolute knowledge science gives us).

The essay, as a whole, is easy to read. The writing style flows well, but I felt as if the piece was an introduction to something more complex.