Any criticisms would be greatly appreciated
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:36 am
Though I'm officially new here on TLS, I've been lurking around in the past few months. After a few drafts, this is what I came up with for my PS. If you guys can give me any feedback, I'll be very thankful!
In my college years, I have developed an exceptional fondness for philosophy - a fondness that returned the favor by developing me. Through solving logical puzzles and tediously evaluating philosopher’s arguments from the past three thousand years, I attained a better grasp of logic, an understanding of the history of thought, and analytical skills that, at times, resemble obsession. I would like to tell you about one such obsession, as it is not only of legal concern, but because it is so basic to our daily decisions. Also, it still concerns me today.
In Spring of 2014, I took a class about ancient Chinese philosophy. The writings that I found most interesting were those that dealt with questions of good and evil, right and wrong. It came as no surprise to me that many of the writers of these ancient arguments had day jobs as lawyers and judges. One particular idea stood out among the rest that semester - the ethic principle of reciprocity, commonly known as the Golden Rule. However, it was not the rule itself that led to my infatuation, but how it was stated by Confucius. He said, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Being accustomed to Western culture, I always thought of the Golden Rule as a directive that tells one to act towards others as one wants others to act towards one’s self. Although many of my classmates did not see a contrast between the two beyond phrasing, I instantly began applying both of them to daily situations and noting the different resulting behaviors. How ignorant and selfish, I thought, I have been in believing that I know how people want to be treated simply because I know how I want them to treat me.
As lecture devolved into discussion, it became clear that I was holding an unpopular position. The majority of my classmates believed that the same idea was being communicated in two ways - the first was telling one how to act, while the second was telling one not to do the opposite of the first. I remained unconvinced, and argued that the two rules have different implications. While conceding that the varying semantics of the Golden Rule do not necessitate that different behaviors follow, I used multiple real-life scenarios to demonstrate the difference between directing someone to act and diverging one from the opposite of that act. Unfortunately, class came to an abrupt end and I did not get to experience the effect of my argument on our debate.
Later that day, I was driving home on autopilot, as my mind was riddled with thoughts. The simplest things, such as street signs, would send me spiraling into deliberations. I realized that both variations of the Golden Rule are already in use. As I passed by a yield sign, I recognized that it is directing me to give way to approaching traffic. On the other hand, a speed limit sign tells me how fast I should not go, i.e. above the speed on the sign. It would not be difficult to reformulate either of these, though, such that the opposite statement of the Golden Rule is used. However, ethical principles are not so black and white. If I am to believe that generosity is good, for example, then I can only do good by sharing my wealth. In contrast, if I hold that I should not be greedy, then I can either be generous or do nothing, and still be considered good by that norm. The important thing I took away from this lesson by Confucius is that simple rephrasing of a statement warp its implications in ways that are not immediately apparent.
I protract the discussion of this matter because it demonstrates the level of critical thinking I intend to bring to your school. I have a high interest in matters of right and wrong, and as centuries of philosophical thought have shown, the two are not easily discernible. As a result, the legal process demands strong reasoning skills in order to be an effective means of settling disputes and delivering justice. I believe I have a good grasp of these skills in the theoretical environment that is philosophy. I would like to develop them through the study of law and be able to apply them to better the society in which I live.
Am I emphasizing too much on my "qualifications?" Since I lived a pretty mediocre life, I have not had any extremely personal experiences, so I chose to write on a more academic subject. Also, is the last paragraph too cover-letter-y?
In my college years, I have developed an exceptional fondness for philosophy - a fondness that returned the favor by developing me. Through solving logical puzzles and tediously evaluating philosopher’s arguments from the past three thousand years, I attained a better grasp of logic, an understanding of the history of thought, and analytical skills that, at times, resemble obsession. I would like to tell you about one such obsession, as it is not only of legal concern, but because it is so basic to our daily decisions. Also, it still concerns me today.
In Spring of 2014, I took a class about ancient Chinese philosophy. The writings that I found most interesting were those that dealt with questions of good and evil, right and wrong. It came as no surprise to me that many of the writers of these ancient arguments had day jobs as lawyers and judges. One particular idea stood out among the rest that semester - the ethic principle of reciprocity, commonly known as the Golden Rule. However, it was not the rule itself that led to my infatuation, but how it was stated by Confucius. He said, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Being accustomed to Western culture, I always thought of the Golden Rule as a directive that tells one to act towards others as one wants others to act towards one’s self. Although many of my classmates did not see a contrast between the two beyond phrasing, I instantly began applying both of them to daily situations and noting the different resulting behaviors. How ignorant and selfish, I thought, I have been in believing that I know how people want to be treated simply because I know how I want them to treat me.
As lecture devolved into discussion, it became clear that I was holding an unpopular position. The majority of my classmates believed that the same idea was being communicated in two ways - the first was telling one how to act, while the second was telling one not to do the opposite of the first. I remained unconvinced, and argued that the two rules have different implications. While conceding that the varying semantics of the Golden Rule do not necessitate that different behaviors follow, I used multiple real-life scenarios to demonstrate the difference between directing someone to act and diverging one from the opposite of that act. Unfortunately, class came to an abrupt end and I did not get to experience the effect of my argument on our debate.
Later that day, I was driving home on autopilot, as my mind was riddled with thoughts. The simplest things, such as street signs, would send me spiraling into deliberations. I realized that both variations of the Golden Rule are already in use. As I passed by a yield sign, I recognized that it is directing me to give way to approaching traffic. On the other hand, a speed limit sign tells me how fast I should not go, i.e. above the speed on the sign. It would not be difficult to reformulate either of these, though, such that the opposite statement of the Golden Rule is used. However, ethical principles are not so black and white. If I am to believe that generosity is good, for example, then I can only do good by sharing my wealth. In contrast, if I hold that I should not be greedy, then I can either be generous or do nothing, and still be considered good by that norm. The important thing I took away from this lesson by Confucius is that simple rephrasing of a statement warp its implications in ways that are not immediately apparent.
I protract the discussion of this matter because it demonstrates the level of critical thinking I intend to bring to your school. I have a high interest in matters of right and wrong, and as centuries of philosophical thought have shown, the two are not easily discernible. As a result, the legal process demands strong reasoning skills in order to be an effective means of settling disputes and delivering justice. I believe I have a good grasp of these skills in the theoretical environment that is philosophy. I would like to develop them through the study of law and be able to apply them to better the society in which I live.
Am I emphasizing too much on my "qualifications?" Since I lived a pretty mediocre life, I have not had any extremely personal experiences, so I chose to write on a more academic subject. Also, is the last paragraph too cover-letter-y?