Salam,

This is my First Message on this Forum. Essay writting is an art. What should be the strategy to Write an Essay on Topics, when you sit in the exam for the first time and find an which is on a quotations. For Example.. Remenber you have to write an essay of atleast 1500 words

Attempt Any One.

1- In a long disputes both parties are wrong

2- End OF Cheap oil

3- I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say

4- Humanism

5- Existantialism

Salaam,

Sorry for the late reply. Due to deficiency of time, I can't write you an essay on any one of them but will place my ideas as further:

1- In a long disputes both parties are wrong

When I consider, a glimpse of Kashmir dispute comes to my mind. But then look at the topic, you have got to hold both Pakistan and India equally guilty of missing headway on the dispute. And if you accuse Pakistan of anything in your CSS Exam, you're divested of all the rights to pass the exam.

3- I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say

Quite complex. Beyond my skills.

4- Humanism

Here are the different meanings of this word. Now you've to decide which one is the examiner asking?

noun [MASS NOUN] a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

(often Humanism) a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

(among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centred on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.

Later on I was informed by one of my friends that it was some Philosophical work of any philosopher? I have no nexus with philosophy at all.

5 - Existentialism

noun [MASS NOUN] a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Hahah... Philosophical theory again... not for me!!

If I had been served your paper. I would sure go for the topic:

2- End OF Cheap oil

This one sounds the easiest in your list.

From my understanding, I would include the following aspects in that essay.

Oil
Uses of Oil
Dependency of World on Oil
Oil Reserves
Causes of upsurge in Oil prices
Effects of the upsurge
Remedies: Switching over to alternatives, the best one.

Or ways of bringing oil prices down. (Probably opening access to hidden oil reserves in different countries)

Regards,

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

1- In a long disputes both parties are wrong


The wording seems to be ambigious at first instance i.e. seems to be having more than one meanings but I think it is reducable to one particular meaning. The word "both" indicates that there are only "two" parties involved in the situation to be analyzed. There are not more than two parties. So it is quite clear now that we have only two parties and both of them are having a "dispute". The nature of this "dispute" also needs to be made clear before starting the main body of the essay. It is obvious that "disputes" can be of any kind. The dispute can be about the ownership of land, can be over political control of some state or about the legitimacy of any kingship. For example if there is a dispute over the ownership of a cow between two persons and this dispute has been quite prolonged, and if we assume that in each and every prolonged dispute, both the parties have to be wrong, then the only solution left would be to divide the cow in two parts thus spoiling the subject matter at all. It is quite clear that if there are only two parties and the dispute is about the ownership of a cow, then this cow would belong to only one of the party and thus that party would be on the right and the other party must be wrong.

It means that this essay is not requiring to analyze the disputes between pwo parties in which subject matter of the dispute is the ownership of some asset etc. because it is quite clear that if the issue is about the ownership of asset and there are only two claiments, then only one of the claiment can be on the right and the other one must be wrong.

The other important thing is that we should not analyze the Kashmir issue in this essay because there are more than two parties involved in this case. The requirement of essay is to analyze the situation where there are only two parties and the dispute has become prolonged. In the case of Kashmir, India and Pakistan are not the only parties. Kashmiries exist as third party in this case. So we need not to worry that the essay is requiring to state that along with Idia, Pakistan is also wrong, which we cannot say because we want to pass the exam. There is no need to worry because we can say that since there are more than two parties involved in this case so not only that Pakistan has not proved to be wrong but also we need to find some other subject matter for the purpose of our essay which fulfills all the requirements of this essay.

So we need to have only two parties who are having a prolonged dispute such that the dispute is not just over the ownership of some asset. It means that we should try to find some other types of disputes. For example, the dispute between two persons can be over (i) religious beliefs or; (ii) political opinions.

Now we should try to see can both the parties be wrong in the above mentioned types of disputes. Let us take the example of prolonged dispute over religious beliefs of only two persons. If one of the persons is a Jew and the other one is Chriestian, then we can freely say (without hesitation) that actually both the parties are wrong in this case. But it is not the demand of this essay. This essay does not demand to prove that prolonged dispute over religious beliefs of a Jew person and a Chriestian person means that these both persons are wrong. The demand of the essay is to prove that a prolonged dispute between any two parties mean that both are wrong. If we say that the prolonged dispute between a Jew person and a Chriestian person over their religious beliefs is due the fact that actually both the persons are wrong, here we have not proved what is demanded by this essay. What we have proved is that "if both the parties are wrong, then dispute between them shall become prolonged".

So here a different thing has been proved. Here another very sensitive fact needs to be highlighted. If in the above example, we replace Christian and Jew by Muslim and Hindu, then? Obviously now, due to many reasons we cannot say that both the persons are wrong in this way. It is very clear that if we say that both parties must be wrong in this case also then as a necessary outcome, we will have to say that Muslim person is also wrong but this is what we cannot say. Why we cannot say this? Along with many other reasons, obviously we want to pass the exam...! So we should choose some other kind of dispute between two parties. As we already have identified that the other kind of dispute may be over political opinions. I think in this type of "dispute", there is no any sensitive thing, and so after some analysis, we can conclude that "if there are only two parties, and the "prolonged" dispute between them is over some political opinion then the fact that the "dispute" has been "prolonged" is the clear evidence that actually both the parties are "wrong".

And just how we shall conclude it? for this purpose, first of all we shall define "opinion". The definition of "opinion" should be such that it would be impossible for two different persons, who belong to different polititical groups, to have same type of opinions. The other important characteristic of this "definition" should be that there must be some object criteria which can test the truth of the opinions of both the persons. The third important characteristic of this definition should be that their must be flexibility and elasticity in that "opinion" so that if it is checked with the "objective criteria" for its truth-value and found wrong, then it must up-date and correct itself.

By keepking such type of definition of "opinion", we can now analyze the case of a prolonged dispute over "opinions" between two political persons. If the dispute is not yet prolonged then it means that the truth-value of both the opinions has not yet been tested with that "objective criteria". But if the dispute has been prolonged then we should assume that both the opinions have been properly tested with that objective critera. As per the definition of "opinion", we know that these opinions were "flexible" i.e. after checking with the objective criteria, if wrong, then they must have been up-dated to conform to that objective criteria. If one of the opinion was already right, then it means that it was already in conformance with that objective critera. The opinion which was wrong, when it was tested with the objective critera and was found to be wrong, it then must have been up-dated and corrected because it was "flexible".

The right opinion was already in conformance with the objective truth and the wrong opinion has been corrected by now. It means that after this pessage of time when both the opinions have been tested with the objective criteria and necessary corrections have been made in both of them then it means that now both the opinions are in conformance with a single objective truth. It means that now there is no difference in opinionm at all if both the opinions are in agreement with a single truth then they must be in agreement with one another. So it is logically a "mathemetically" proved that now (after a "prolonged" period) there is no real difference in those two opinions.

Now see that "mathemetically", there is no REAL difference between those opinions, but if both the parties are still on the dispute then we can now confidently say that both the parties are actually wrong in their dispute because they are just wrongfully disputing over those opinions which, in real terms, are not different from one another at all.

So it is sufficiently proved that if there are only two parties and dispute between them is over political opinions and the dispute has been prolonged, then both the parties MUST BE WRONG.

.................................................. ..

One very important caution --- Must keep in mind:

I said that we must "define" the "opinion" in such particular way which can be helpful in arriving at the desired (demanded) conclusion. Obviously you will have to define the "opinion" at your own, by using your own intellectual skills. BUT never write in the essay that you have defined this (or any) term or concept at your own. The best way is to define the terms at your own but then write that this term has been so defined by let's say Soctrates or Plato or Aristotle etc. etc. More preferrably try to use the name of some Muslim prominent scholar such as Ibn-Sina, Al-Farabi or Illama Iqbal etc. etc. This stretegy shall give good impression and you shall be given good marks. Never say that you have defined this or any term at your own. It shall not be beneficial. A CSS "officer" is not supposed to have his own independent mind. He has to just "implement" the policies and he cannot be supposed to be capable of fomulating policies at his own.


.................................................. ..


Other topics are also interesting. "I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say" can also be attempted in the above mentioned way.

Humanism and Existentialism are really specific terms and so should be attempted only and only if you possess the specific knowledge about these "philosophical movements". Yes these are philosophical movements and should not be attempted in any general way.

"End of Cheap Oil" should be attempted if you know about the related important facts and figures.

Thanx!

some information abt HUMANISM & EXISTENTIALISM...
HUMANISM
Broadly this term suggest any attitude that tends to exalt the human element r stress the impotence of human intersts,as opposed to the supernatural,divine element or as opposed to the grosser,aniemal elements.so a student of human affairs may b called a humanist,& the study of human beings as human beings,ie,the human race rather than of individual human beings has been called HUMANISM.

In a more specific sense,humanism suggest a devotion to those studies supposed to promote human culture most effectely- in particular those dealing with the life ,thought,language & literature of ancient Greece & Rome.

In literaray history the most imp use of the term is to designate the revival of classical culture that accompanied the RENAISSANCE.The Renaissance humanists found in the classics a justification to the exalt human nature & build a new & highly idealistic gosspel of progress upon it.Also they found it necessary to break sharply with Mediaeval attitudes that had subordinated 1 aspect of human nature by exalting the supernatural & divine.The Renaissance humanists agreed with the ancients in asserting the dignity of human beings & the imp of the present life,as against those mediaeval thinkers who considered the present life useful chiefly as a preperation of future....this worldlines v/s other worldiness.

EXISTENTIALISM
A term applied to a group of attitudes current in philosophical, religious & artistic thought during & aftetr the second world War, which ephasises the existence rather than essence & sees the inadicuences of thye human reason to explain the enigma of universe as a basic philosophical question.

Basically the existantialist assumes that existence proceeds essence,that the significant fact uis that we & things general exist bt these things has no meaning 4 us except as we can create meaning through acting upon them.Sarte claims that the fundamental truth of existentialism is in Descartees formoula "I Think;Therfore,I Exist".

with regards,
Muskan

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.

Please give marks to following essay so that I may assess myself. Thanks!

.................................................. ......................................

I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say:

When Roussue sent his latest artical to Volatire for review; Volatire after having read, wrote him, "Your latest work is the most intelligent effort, that I could never anticipate of its kind, to make us think that we actually are not humans at all, and that we should leave up our present day civilization and should go to Jungals and Deserts as naturally, really we are just like other animals and we in fact do wrong when we do such inferior and mean acts like thinking and living on the basis of our intellect and wisdom." Volatire was a profound advocate of using the light of intellect and wisdom. Roussue on the other hand was known for his anti-rational philosophy. Despite being against using the intellect and wisdom, Roussue however himself was a strong supporter of a kind of thoughtful dogmatism. Volatire, being an advocate of using intellect and wisdom, was of the view that humans must be free in their thinking. That is, there should be, as he thought, complete liberty of thought because if there is any restriction on free thinking, we humans then cannot live a life which would be based on the light of intellect and wisdom. The very tricky and "wiseful" attacks on wisdom by Roussue however put Volatire under a dillema for he was very much against all what Roussue wanted to preach and at the same time he could not ask Roussue to stop his non-sense anti-rational preaches because if he asked him so, actually he would be putting a restriction on thinkings of Roussue. Obviously, if he tried to put any such restriction, he would go against his own point of view that was in support of full liberty in thinking.

How did volatire managed to come out of this dillema? It was in the form of his famous reply to Roussue, "I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say". Why Volatire thought it necessary to disapprove of the Roussue's point of view but to still hold his right to preach whatever he wanted to say? Volatire's this position actually was an accurate reflection of all the intellectual environment of the west of his day. It is very important to mention however that the Volatire's intellectual environment was gradually so developed that now it was possible for him to take the position where he was disapproving and holding some that sort of things which really could not be so disapproved or hold out just a few centuries ago.

The European history, earlier to the time of Volatire was not characterised by such type of open hearts where people could really hold the right to say of what they disapprove of. Actually there was the hold of quite an opposite point of view in those times. That point of view was something like that: "I disapprove of what you say, so I do not accept your right to even live in this world."

This type of point of view had its roots in the Catholic religious dogmas of that time. There was no liberty of any kind of theoretical or other disagreement with the point of view of Church. Not only all the religious ideology of that time but every sort of knowledge including pure sciences were all in the form of very sacred religious dogmas to which church wanted to keep and exercise its sole authority and proprietorship.

Copernicus was very much aware of the fact that what new ideas about the structure of universe and solar system had he found, were going against the established point of view of his contemporary church. He was aware that church shall not approve of his findings and therefore will not let him un-punished in response to his disagreement with them. Copernicus actually had found that the established view about the structure of universe, where earth was considered to be the center of universe and sun and planets were thought to be moving around the world, was wrong in fact. Copernicus had found the truth that earth was not the center of universe because actually earth itself was circling around the sun in the solar system, along with other planets. Copernicus was so much afraid of the anticipated response of church to this kind of disagreement that he could not dare to publish his great work in his own life.

"I disapprove of what you say, so I punish you for why you dared to say this". This was the practical attitude of Catholic church in the case of Galilio where he claimed to have confirmed the truth of the point of view of Copernicus by observing the night sky using his self-made telescope. Galilio happened to be more bold than Copernicus. This was not the first time when he disagreed the established dogmas. Previously he had successfully shown that all the objects, irrespective of their weights, fall toward earth at the same rate of pace. And this time again he made such a courageous stand of making claim of having an observable proof in support of the point of view of Copernicus. Church, in response, not only disapproved his claim but also compelled him to refute his own previous stand. Galilio could not bear the forceful anger of church. He did accept his "mistake" before others but in his mind, he was still convinced of his own point of view. Society of his time could not give him his right to express his point of view which was true.

Time passed by. Use of telescope became common. wise people confirmed the truth of Galilio's point of view at their own. point of view of the Church was proved to be wrong. Johanas Capler successfully calculated the paths of earth and other planets in which they orbit about the sun. The method of observational proofs introduced by Galilio became popular. People started confirming the established dogmas using experimental method. Newton made his accurate observations of physical objects and found the laws of gravitation and motion. The observational or experimental method thus won the war against the religious "scientific" dogmas of the Church. Ethically, point of view of the Church became weak. Now it was a bright fact that Church was wrong in the case of Galilio. Copernicus, Galilio and Newton became the heroes of modern time. It was generally accepted that Corpernicus and Galilio were not rightfully treated by the socities of their time. The modern society was feeling guilty over it. Society, as a whole wanted to rectify its wrong doings. Modern progressive forces were in fever of accepting the superiority of rationality and experimental method in the process of knowing the truth. These progressive forces became so strong that now they openly and very easily go against the traditional points of view. Now the patterns of likings and dislikings of the society reversed. Society, now would hate those who prefer traditional views over modern views. But still there was a class which still was not ready to accept the truth and superiority of the modern scientific views.

The progressive people, who were represented by people like Volatire, identified that the main difference between old traditional world and modern scientific world was the acceptance of the superior role of human intellect and wisdom in the process of getting knowledge, in the modern world. For those progressive people, their contemporary world was better than the old traditional world. As already has been mentioned that some regressive forces in the society were also present. Since the tone of the mainstream society was totally changed, so the position of those regressive elements had becomed reversed. Now in the modern times, one who would take the side of traditional views, would be considered to be insane by the mainstream society because the experimental method had been proved so successful that it became synonyme of truth itself, even for a layman.

Now the situation was opposite. previously, it was the progressive people who could not openly express their views. Now this difficulty was for those who were still traditional in their approach and views. Previously those traditional minded people could easily abstain progressive people from openly expressing their views by just using the force. Now they were not in position to exercise force because by then, they had lost the support of general opinion. So those regressive elements could not effectively use the language of force to combat the widespread view of the superiority of human intellect and wisdom over the ancient traditions.

So the tasks before the regressive elements were to fight and reject the modern views and to again win the support of general opinion. They could not employ force for addressing to these objectives, so some of them tried to combat the modern views using the power of pen. Roussue was prominent among them. He denied accepting the superiority of intellect and wisdom. He wrote: "those who think, are inferior animals". He rejected the modern ideas of culture and civilization. He forwarded his own views about culture and civilization, which were based on ancient traditions. He tried to prove the authenticity of scientific nature religious dogmas. He was quite rational and he used strong arguments in support of his anti-rational views. He really made progessive people to seriously think about the negative aspects of accepting the superiority of human intellect and wisdom. Volatire was his contemporary prominent progressive intellectual philosopher.

Now it was Roussue, a regressive person, who was going against the general opinion of the society. Volatire was the representative of that modern general opinion. He was against the points of view of Roussue but at the same time he believed in the complete freedom of thought. Roussue was thinking against freedom of thought, but after all he himself was "thinking". Volatire could not ask him to stop his negative thinkings because he did not want to impose any restriction on thinking, even if it was negative.

In the modern world of his time, now he was able to approve or disapprove traditional views. He was in a stronger position, so he said to Roussue, "I disapprove of what you say but still hold your right to say."

This was the result of a complete turn of the course of history. This is a good rational treatment against the opposing ideas but still we should not accept this solution to all the similar type problems because there can actually be some very sensitive issues where it may not be possible to accept the right to say of others, where others cross their legitimate rational limits.

Salaam,

Brother, surprisingly when I searched the quote string on google, I failed to get any results.

What I found, was a lot of webpages with a modified quote as: "I disapprove
of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Did Voltaire really say that to Rousseau?

Anyways, this is a useless debate.

I read your essay. And you are not supposed to take my comments as a 'fake praise'. Brother, you did a real nice job. Your flow of the language and style of stating the facts was exceptional. For marks, I give you 9/10. (1 mein rakh leta hoon )

Thanks for sharing this nice piece with us. Please continue the good work.

Regards,

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

khurram bhai ....u r really exquisite and eloquent in ur expression and i'm sure

about ur success in this exam(InshaAllah) ............i have found you to be

a very rare one , to have ur ideas expressed with such a command and

confidence,,,,best of luck

Thanks brothers for encouragement.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Yes this is complete original wording.


Thanks!

Nice work khuram....
keep it up...
But still need some improvement especially in the start & in the end.....Ur strat of essay should b v superb & similarly the conclusion....

Wt Eourpian Press is doing in the name of freedom of thought...can also be reffered....

on the whole its v good attempt...
best luck
with regards,
Musakn

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.