Thank you soo much for looking at my question. Can you please revise.
The Infamy of Man
Two philosophical movement dared to probe the universe for the answer to a question as old as time itself: Is man good or evil? The two groups were absolute opposites with a full array of weapons in their arsenal to counter the beliefs of one another. On one side of the chiasm stood the Transcendentalist and in opposition the cleverly named Anti-trascendentalist. The members of both teams ranged from some of history’s greatest writers to poetic farmers with an itch to argue, to even the early fervent feminists.
Transcendentalist consisted of free-thinking individuals with a rather delusional optimistic view of the world. Primarily, these people defended Man from the accusation of embodying pure evil from birth, which of course is the belief of their counterparts, the Anti-transcendentalist. Might appear harsh to readers of the present time, but in the 1830’s these ideas were accepted truths. Transcendentalists believed that children were God’s most perfect creations (oddly contradicts the conjured images of the little munchkins running in circles, screaming while throwing toys at their parents), but to the Transcendentalists, infants were born with halos permanently attached to their craniums.
Now, in opposition are the Anti-transcendentalist who maintain an impermeable grasp on the old-style Puritan beliefs. Like the other over-zealous, bible-crazed, religious believers, Anti-transcendentalists envisioned children born with the brand of mortal sin, handed down generation after generation from the nexus: their ancestors, good old Adam and Eve who failed to resist temptation in paradise.
If mankind is born good or bad, will they always remain so? Another confusing question working for the same answer. First, the Anti-transcendentalists say Man is the most destructive force in nature. Not much more is needed to answer the previous question, but furthermore they also believed Man would choose the wrong choice over the right one. A pessimistic outlook that sounds more appealing than the “evil does not exist” concept when watching the evening news, but as always the Transcendentalist have the opposition: Evil does not exist, it is only an absence of good. So where there is no good, there is wickedness, pain, and wrong-doing. Good must simply be returned there to disperse the darkness. Once again, sounds like delusional optimism utilized for cloaking the negativity in the world, which in contradiction is caused mostly by humans.
Christians (or of any of the plethora of religious branches) knows of what the afterlife holds for the deceased: Heaven and Hell. The contradicting duo represent the ultimate resting place, determined by deeds accomplished throughout life. Those who have done good and have cleansed themselves of sin may enter the eternal bliss of Heaven. Those who have done bad and acquired a sinful debt, will forever burn in the torment of Hell. Black and white, no shades of gray, beliefs that the Anti-transcendentalists shared. In order for this division of Heaven or Hell bound people to occur evil must exist to test the person hanging in the balance.
The Transcendentalists simply could not accept such a discriminating and malicious system. Instead they believed in a collective pool to which everything and everyone is connected to. This pool, called the “Oversoul” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, is the god-like figure of the Transcendentalists. Following death, the inner-spirit of all things would return to the Oversoul and merge into a spiritual melting pot, where later the separate pieces would merge and be reincarnated into the world.
Obviously, in total opposition to the Anti-transcendental beliefs, the Oversoul concept infuriated the Anti-transcendentalists, because it stated that every soul would go to the same final destination, regardless of their actions in life. Also, reincarnation was disregarded as wrong and against the natural order of God.
So, who won the debate of the evil in Man, the transcendentalists, or Anti-transcendentalists? The answer: neither.
Both groups force the readers into a paradox. They simply stand on the edges of completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention the immature method of arguing, where one makes a point and the other retaliates with a total contrary statement. They reduce the options to one side or the other, leaving little or no room to stand somewhere in the middle.
Infants cannot be born good or bad. They have simply not committed enough actions to engender such a judgment, unless kicking their mothers’ kidney from the inside is considered and evil deed. The child must grow to learn and differentiate between right and wrong to earn his title of benevolent angel or nefarious demon.
The Transcendentalist concept that good is need for the dispelling of evil is agreeable. On the scales of good and evil, a person can have more of one than the other. Therefore, a human being can alternate between being totally good, completely bad, or marinating a balance.
The Anti-transcendentalists did have an accurate measure of the power of man. Indeed, Man is the most destructive force in nature. The evidence is scattered in the world humans inhabit: the disappearing rainforests, the extinction of fellow creatures, the self-destruction of war, global warming, etc. The list could go on, but all caused by the actions of man.
So, to answer the age-old question, is simply a matter of rephrasing the question: Not, “Is Man evil?”, but “Is that man evil?”
Two philosophical movement dared to probe the universe for the answer to a question as old as time itself: Is man good or evil? The two groups were absolute opposites with a full array of weapons in their arsenal to counter the beliefs of one another. On one side of the chiasm stood the Transcendentalist and in opposition the cleverly named Anti-trascendentalist. The members of both teams ranged from some of history’s greatest writers to poetic farmers with an itch to argue, to even the early fervent feminists. Check spelling; comma in compound sentence; singular/plural confusion; adjective/noun confusion.
Transcendentalist consisted of free-thinking individuals with a rather delusional optimistic view of the world. Primarily, these people defended Man from the accusation of embodying pure evil from birth, which of course is the belief of their counterparts, the Anti-transcendentalist. Might appear harsh to readers of the present time, but in the 1830’s these ideas were accepted truths. Transcendentalists believed that children were God’s most perfect creations (oddly contradicts the conjured images of the little munchkins running in circles, screaming while throwing toys at their parents), but to the Transcendentalists, infants were born with halos permanently attached to their craniums. Singular/plural confusion (Transcendentalist = 1; Transcendentalists = 2+; word choice: “defended Man against” (not “from”); subject is missing in sentence 3; awkward inclusion of idea in parentheses <~~in fact that whole sentence needs reworking to put all the Tr ideas together and all the Anti-Tr ideas together.
Now, in opposition are the Anti-transcendentalist who maintain an impermeable grasp on the old-style Puritan beliefs. Like the other over-zealous, bible-crazed, religious believers, Anti-transcendentalists envisioned children born with the brand of mortal sin, handed down generation after generation from the nexus: their ancestors, good old Adam and Eve who failed to resist temptation in paradise. Singular/plural confusion again; capitalization; not well developed to be a full paragraph.
If mankind is born good or bad, will they always remain so? Another confusing question working for the same answer. First, the Anti-transcendentalists say Man is the most destructive force in nature. Not much more is needed to answer the previous question, but furthermore they also believed Man would choose the wrong choice over the right one. A pessimistic outlook that sounds more appealing than the “evil does not exist” concept when watching the evening news, but as always the Transcendentalist have the opposition: Evil does not exist, it is only an absence of good. So where there is no good, there is wickedness, pain, and wrong-doing. Good must simply be returned there to disperse the darkness. Once again, sounds like delusional optimism utilized for cloaking the negativity in the world, which in contradiction is caused mostly by humans. Word choice (mankind=humanity as a whole; people=individuals); sentence fragments;
Christians (or of any of the plethora of religious branches) knows of what the afterlife holds for the deceased: Heaven and Hell. The contradicting duo represent the ultimate resting place, determined by deeds accomplished throughout life. Those who have done good and have cleansed themselves of sin may enter the eternal bliss of Heaven. Those who have done bad and acquired a sinful debt, will forever burn in the torment of Hell. Black and white, no shades of gray, beliefs that the Anti-transcendentalists shared. In order for this division of Heaven or Hell bound people to occur evil must exist to test the person hanging in the balance. Strange wording in parentheses; subject/verb agreement; extraneous word; unneeded comma; sentence fragment; use of hyphens;
The Transcendentalists simply could not accept such a discriminating and malicious system. Instead they believed in a collective pool to which everything and everyone is connected to. This pool, called the “Oversoul” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, is the god-like figure of the Transcendentalists. Following death, the inner-spirit of all things would return to the Oversoul and merge into a spiritual melting pot, where later the separate pieces would merge and be reincarnated into the world. Not a fully developed paragraph (connect this and the next two for better paragraphing; repetitive “to”
Obviously, in total opposition to the Anti-transcendental beliefs, the Oversoul concept infuriated the Anti-transcendentalists, because it stated that every soul would go to the same final destination, regardless of their actions in life. Also, reincarnation was disregarded as wrong and against the natural order of God. Unneeded comma; pronoun/antecedent agreement; word choice; paragraphing error
So, who won the debate of the evil in Man, the transcendentalists, or Anti-transcendentalists? The answer: neither. Paragraphing problem
Both groups force the readers into a paradox. They simply stand on the edges of completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention the immature method of arguing, where one makes a point and the other retaliates with a total contrary statement. They reduce the options to one side or the other, leaving little or no room to stand somewhere in the middle.
Infants cannot be born good or bad. They have simply not committed enough actions to engender such a judgment, unless kicking their mothers’ kidney from the inside is considered and evil deed. The child must grow to learn and differentiate between right and wrong to earn his title of benevolent angel or nefarious demon. Sentence fragment; misuse of “where”; singular/plural confusion; “an” not “and”
The Transcendentalist concept that good is need for the dispelling of evil is agreeable. On the scales of good and evil, a person can have more of one than the other. Therefore, a human being can alternate between being totally good, completely bad, or marinating a balance. Verb tense problem; “agreeable” to whom? “marinating”?? paragraph development problem
The Anti-transcendentalists did have an accurate measure of the power of man. Indeed, Man is the most destructive force in nature. The evidence is scattered in the world humans inhabit: the disappearing rainforests, the extinction of fellow creatures, the self-destruction of war, global warming, etc. The list could go on, but all caused by the actions of man.
So, to answer the age-old question, is simply a matter of rephrasing the question: Not, “Is Man evil?”, but “Is that man evil?” Fragments
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/fragments.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/paragraphs.htm
Use the Index in this website to access information about other needs.
The content and organization of your paper are fine. The greatest errors are 1) the undeveloped paragraphs and 2) the fragments.
=)
"The Infamy of Man" is a philosophical exploration of whether humans are fundamentally good or evil. The author presents two opposing groups: the Transcendentalists and the Anti-transcendentalists. The Transcendentalists believe in the inherent goodness of mankind, seeing children as pure and divine creations. On the other hand, the Anti-transcendentalists adhere to old-style Puritan beliefs, viewing humans as sinful from birth.
To determine if humans are inherently good or evil, the Anti-transcendentalists argue that humans are the most destructive force in nature, choosing wrong over right. They believe that evil exists as a absence of good, and the solution is to bring more good into the world. In contrast, the Transcendentalists reject the notion of evil and believe that everything and everyone is connected in a collective pool called the "Oversoul." They propose that after death, all spirits return to the Oversoul and later get reincarnated.
However, this debate ultimately leaves readers in a paradox, as both sides present extreme viewpoints without leaving room for any middle ground. Infants cannot be labeled as inherently good or evil since they have not yet performed enough actions to be judged. A person's goodness or evilness is determined by their actions and ability to differentiate between right and wrong. It is also essential to acknowledge that humans have the power to cause immense destruction and harm to the world.
Ultimately, the question of whether a specific individual is good or evil depends on their actions and behavior. This reframing of the question shifts the focus from broad generalizations about humanity to a more nuanced understanding of individuals.