Voice, according to Webster’s dictionary is “an instrument or medium of expression”. The voice makes a paper more personable and easier to relate to. Therefore, in my opinion, making it the key to a paper. The only problem is, what is voice? I understand Webster’s definition, but what is voice to me? I find voice to be a form of imitation that is mostly style based. I feel that if I can write in a style that is my own then I can become better at persuading readers to see things from my perspective. The style I write in is not full of big words and dense sections but about reaching a diverse range of people. I want the academy and my peers to be able to easily access my writing, not have to dig or reread because I felt the need to impress with extravagant words and detailed phrases.
I find voice to be very interconnected with audience. What I mean by this is if I am writing to the academy I will use a different style opposed to when I write to my peers. Because of this interconnection, the audience that I prefer to write to are my peers but only because it is acceptable to write in my own style. In a way, my peers accept my writing for what it is, there are no expectations or rules while the academy is the opposite. The academy is full of rules and expectations for writers and I find style to be the hardest rule to abide by. Academics seem to like a universal style, but that is just not possible simply because of diversity. When I say it is impossible, I mean that it is impractical for everyone to write exactly how the academy wants him/her to. There are so many different types of people out there, how can the academy expect everyone to do the exact same thing? On top of that, if everyone is supposed to go by the “rules” of the academy then does that not smother individuality? The style, or voice, of a paper gives a paper the power to be different and I find it to be very persuasive when used correctly in writing.
By using voice as a style, writers can persuade readers of just about anything, even if the writer does not agree. This is where the truth comes into play. I believe that when writing to the academy people feel the need to lie to their readers to obtain approval. Writers do not necessarily have to believe in what they are writing; as long as they can explain the theory in their own words they can persuade any audience. I think there are times where people take advantage of voice and use it to falsely lead readers to believe that the writer believes in what they are writing. To prove this theory I took the readings from p.42 to p.46 from On Truth and imitated the substance but added my own style.
When people experience a type of happiness from an external source, Spinoza believes that, that person will in turn love that external source because of the happiness it brought him/her. Overall, he understands love to be the way people react to external sources that bring joy into our lives. Because of this, Spinoza believes that people cannot help loving whatever brings them joy and happiness. These people consistently love this object because they believe it helps them find their “true self”. Which, to me, seems about right. It seems that a lot of people who love show this type of pattern of loving something/someone for the joy and the idea of finding themselves. They see it as someone loving them for being themselves and not having to give up their identity or essentially themselves.
Spinoza later adds an observation about love that seems on target: “One who loves necessarily strives to have present and preserve the things he loves” (Ethics, part III, proposition II, scholium). This proves that people find the things they love to be precious and feel that his/her life and his/her attainment and continued joy of finding oneself depends on the things that he/she loves. Meaning that the things in life that bring us joy we often feel we have to covet them and protect them.
Just to compare and contrast, here is the pages that I imitated on: “Now, if a person who experiences joy recognizes that the joy has a certain external cause --that is, if the person identifies someone or something as the object to which he owes his joy and on which his joy depends – Spinoza believes that the person inevitably loves that object. This is what he understands love to be: the way we respond to what we recognize as causing us joy. On his account, then, people cannot help loving whatever they recognize as being, for them, a source of joy. They invariably love what they believe helps them to continue in existence and to become more fully themselves. It seems to me that Spinoza is at least on the right track here. Many paradigmatic instances of love do exhibit, more or less straightforwardly, the pattern that he defines: people do tend to love what they feel helps them to “find themselves,” to discover “who they really are,” and to face life successfully without betraying or compromising their fundamental natures.
To his account of the essential nature of love, Spinoza adds an observation about love that also seems accurate: “One who loves necessarily strives to have present and preserve the things he loves” (Ethics, part III, proposition II, scholium). The things that a person loves are manifestly and necessarily precious to him. His life, and both his attainment and his continued enjoyment of personal authenticity, depends on them. Therefore, he naturally takes care to protect them and to ensure that they are readily available to him.” (p.44-p.46). After being able to read both sections ask yourself, whom did you believe more? The same substance was given in two different styles. One was set to please the academy while the other was set to please myself.
In doing this exercise I was able to see how people relate voice to substance but I still agree with voice as a style. If voice was substance then people would have to follow rules and I think that a persons voice should not have to follow any rules besides the ones that the writer has set. I believe this because rules are thought of as restrictions and how can you set restrictions on something that initially represents you? I believe that this exercise demonstrated how diverse two people could be and that the academy cannot expect every person to conform to the universal style. By eliminating this expectation the academy might actually enjoy reading papers because they would vary in style and presentation. Without voice, style, I find papers to be monotone and less intriguing as those that do. When I read a paper I feel like I can relate better to the writer when the voice is prominent and by being able to relate, the writer can achieve empathy and persuade his/her audience more effectively.
When imitating On Truth I realized that I understood what the author was saying but while typing the section I never thought if I agreed or disagreed, therefore proving that a writer can write about anything and still achieve voice. Noticing this difference made me become aware of my own experiences with disagreeing in a paper but being able to write a paper in a way that reflected my personality. There have been numerous occasions where I have lied to my readers to “get the A” but still been satisfied with the paper because I felt like I was able to apply the words to the paper how I wanted. I think what it initially comes down to is; do you prefer your words or your opinion to be on the paper?
It would be nice to have both but I find it easier to write when I can use my own words and not have to spend the time looking up big and interesting words that make me sound more intellectual just to please the academy. In the end, I would rather use my voice as an instrument that is fluid throughout a paper through style, instead of only allowing the reader to get “glances” of my voice through the substance.
Posted by sftbal14 on October 12, 2008
Tags Uncategorized
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)