issue77 Too much individualism?

galaxysongUID: 152834

77
"People today are too individualistic. Instead of pursuing self-centered, separate goals, people need to understand that satisfaction comes from working for the greater good of the family, the community, or society as a whole."
----------
20:19
----------
The modern economics stands on the basis of some core assumptions, one of which is that when individuals and private companies strive for their own good, usually by the same token they contribute to the whole society, whether consciously or unconsciously. Along with the development of free economy goes individualism that seemingly amounts to egoism. People have never cease questioning individualism and some advocate collectivism instead. In my view, however, until now individualism still serves the society at large very well because the society has inherent capability to convert individual pursuits into societal contributions.

I used to be an advocator for collectivism. I even remember a sentence (if I can call it so) from a passage criticizing individualism fiercely: "Individualism +individualism=collectivism?" Of course, individualism cannot change into collectivism by a simply plus. I also, even now, firmly stand against egoism that emphasizes one's self to an extreme extent that he or she ignores or despises others and is somewhat anti-social.

However, it is unfair and often counterproductive to compel societal interests onto individuals by external forces, such as political propaganda. First of all, most people have limited duty and therefore power (I believe the two are basically correlated.) to pursue the stability, progress or other issues of the large society. If such exertion on common people goes too far, they will naturally feel trespassed upon and thus be pushed toward egoism instead.

Now I have realized, in light of economics, that the society itself does have a magic to make people serve it indirectly while they are only trying to maximize their own interests. Except a few political leaders, business entrepreneurs and social activities, people seldom need to make unwilling trade-offs between their individual interests and that of the entire society. In fact, the two overlap in most cases and the chief difference is the latter just is hidden beneath the former.

Consider, for example, a medicine engineer who is very common and not concerned with what the society needs. Rather than such abstract concept as society, he (or she) serves his concrete customers very well by researching and developing more effective and economical medicines. He is not a hero who can influence the society to the extent that newspapers would report about him. Nevertheless, he is really contributing his part to the society by saving lives or just make people healthy. Legal jobs, namely most jobs, are also beneficial to the society.

The notion of global interests of society is derived from the needs of individual. An individual needs health, and medicine industry meets it. Similarly, most needs of people can be satisfied by jobs of individuals, usually more effective and efficient than by the government or the like. Working for jobs, people win rewards for their contribution (directly or otherwise) to the society as a whole and are thus not likely to degenerate into selfish anti-social ones.

The society innately operates in this way that individuals serve each other in order to earn for their own good. Individualism, as long as it is healthily developed, especially avoiding from undue advocating for collectivism, usually does not result in egoism. When people improve their well-beings by legitimate jobs, they actually add to the interests of the society. Just as an old saying goes, "all for one, one for all".
-----------
21:30

libbyUID: 151455

我给你看看吧！可能要化点时间！

雪夭UID: 142334

galaxysong，我一直想问你个问题啊，你什么时候考试？

libbyUID: 151455

你写了7段，我觉得是不是有点多啊结构上不是和清楚！而且怎么第2 段主要讲individualism 和ollectivism这样会不会有点偏题啊？ 后面第5段的例子为什么不合在第4段啊？

libbyUID: 151455

说实话，看你这篇issue还真有点累，写的太长了！
我看了那么多同学的文章和我自己写就是感觉我们写的words都是很简单的，不知道这样会不会显的很简单啊！都没有怎么用红宝的词！sigh！

雪夭UID: 142334

给点意见，我还没看，因为在啃提纲，从commonsense来说，除非你是大牛，能把一个点在一小段话中说完，否则以这样的结构，一眼看上去就觉得不丰满。毕竟是限时考试，论点不再多再精，证的有理有深度才最主要。就象argument 一样，两个错误照样有6分。相反，多了，说不清，人家看的也类，脑子要和你跳啊跳啊，不要把老外累倒啊
我的个人看法，别介意啊

galaxysongUID: 152834

总共549个单词，不多不少。
我在3月2日就考了，时间不多。
我的这篇文章不是按常规方法写的，更倾向于“The solution to the world's growing environmental problems may have to wait awhile.”那篇范文，采用了层层深入、娓娓道来的写法。不过分的段落实在多了些。
红宝书使用来应付词汇的。libby看看范文，就知道在作文中到底需要什么水平的词汇量了。

gdhdannyUID: 125843

我这样看

结论和立论都没问题,观点很漂亮

问题主要有两点

一是一直在用经济来作论证，范围有点窄
而是语言太晦涩，newsweek的文章也不像这样

不过还是5分的文章至少

imongUID: 140258

这篇文章从一开头就立意相当有特点
字面上虽然似乎没有说明 但是开头清清楚楚的表明了对People are too individualistic这一论调的反对
为其至少5分打下基础

但是直到倒数第三段仍然停留在economic上面
一个很有深意的开头 却只停留在开头涉及的层面上
没法拿到6分了

文章中的闪光的论点非常多
如果能再insightful一些，再论证充实深入一些（而不是仅仅限于economic，虽然由此引入），还是很有希望冲击满分的，但是现在尚且不足。

lakeqianUID: 157560

这篇文章从一开头就立意相当有特点
字面上虽然似乎没有说明 但是开头清清楚楚的表明了对People are too individualistic这一论调的反对
嗯。。。。。。可是People are too individualistic没感情色彩怎么反对呢？？

galaxysong前几段只是说了个人主义不是那么的糟糕，集体主义也不是那么的好。像是只做了个理想试验。没谈到现在的人们是极端无私还是极端自私。

这样写。。。为其至少5分打下基础。。。。。。不懂。。。。。。

后面几段实际类似于论证看不见的手原理。The society innately operates in this way that individuals serve each other in order to earn for their own good.的确是片面了点。

本文基本没出现satisfaction 这个词。这就不得不怀疑扣题没。当然这只是表面的现象。觉得不扣题的原因如下：

那么后半句没回应啊？人们这么既主观为自己又客观为别人可以得到满足吗？如果得到满足从哪来呢？要知道按他的想法人们是主观为自己客观为社会的。那人们会为他们“一不小心”做的好事感到满足吗？？还是为了自己达成自己的个人目标而满足呢？似乎在论证到位的门口徘徊了一下。

这篇文章似乎不太典型。。。没看太懂。

lakeqianUID: 157560

没说清，在加几个字：没谈到现在的人们是极端无私还是极端自私，或者是其他某种情况。总之有价值判断，没说明白现状。

lakeqianUID: 157560

。。。这是1+1型吗？前半句推导出后半句吗？？推不出吧？
他驳斥了前半句能驳倒后半句吗？

imongUID: 140258

你自己写文章打算从satisfaction入手不等于别人也必须从satisfaction入手。

这道题目我想，看作1+1的话，如果前面的1都已经全驳倒了，还用得着说后面吗？

从没说过1+1是“前面推出后面”，自己再看看什么是“得寸进尺”。

Too的意思是“极端”吗？人们除了极端无私就是极端自私吗?

说明白现状是一种回应的方式，但不是唯一的方法。而且，如果说该文没有“说明白”，我想不难看出文中的意思是“People are individualistic, but not TOO individualistic”吧？

自己下去慢慢想想吧。