Hmm...regarding to the post about GP...

Hey, it is a great article, though I feel a bit weird while reading through it..

Just to voice what I feel..

I feel that the author is being childish in making the value of the knowledge of world issues little..

When I read the article, I felt something wrong.. then I read the teacher's comment, I felt that what he said is actually more convincing then his.

My GP grade wasn't good also. But this doesn't mean that it is useless or irrelevant. On the other hand, I think it is very relevant to our lifes. We get to know why certain things have happened in this world. We get to think what are the factors (cultural, social, political, economic etc) that affect what we are having now, we have had or we are going to have. All these are good to know and think about. I feel that when we are going out to work, there are certain things we need to consider about. And through GP, we get to understand why certain decisions are made. For example, those investors need to know the cultural, social, political and ecomonic bankground, then they can know how much risk is there to invest in certain countries. If we are not taught GP, are we able to know that there are these factors needed to be thought about? By then, maybe the general knowledge is no longer irrelevant but very much relevant to our lifes.

I feel that somehow the author prefers sentimental approach rather than logical one. Yes, maybe a sentimental approach is able to attract people better. But I think a logical approach can provoke people to think. When knowledge is not used in a proper way, then it cannot be useful. When you have doubted and thought about the piece of knowledge you have learnt, then you have understood and applied it, then you have gained the knowledge. GP not only helps us to know more about what happens on this world, but more importantly it asks us to think about what we have known.

Why GP is so hard to score? Because we need a substantial, convincing and original essay. Why is it so hard to write a substantial one? Because we think that what happens on this world isn't so relevant to our lifes that we couldn't be bothered. Therefore we don't have enough examples to make the essay substantial. Why we cannot write a convincing one? Because we never bothered to think about the issues but to anyhow form arguments without much thinking, childishly thinking poeple will buy their story. Why we cannot wirte an original one? Because we only look at the superficial level of the issues, then we arrogantly feel it is enough for us to show that we know the issues, forgetting the deeper knowledge that have yet to be discovered.

He argues that why don't we do something, since we have been thinking so much about the issues? I want to ask, what else are the arguments that we are able to think at this schooling and dependant age but those adults who have more experience than us have not thought of? I have questioned myself before, how to write an essay with full of originality. The various newspapers and magazines have provided us certain arguments about the issues. If we use those arguments, with good examples, we can pass GP. Maybe with good language, we might be able to get a B.

You see, we can never know the full picture of certain issues as we are not them. Like tsunami victims, we never know how painful they feel since we do not experience the tsunami. We can only get information from media, in this way our perceptions maybe coloured, as we can only accept what is told to us. Even we logically think about the information given to us and get what we think is true, it is only part of the true story. Then do you think base on this incomplete information, we can think of great solution and solve the problem completely? The answer is obvious, no.

He mentioned that if we care for the people around us (whom we know or see) more, it is better as they are near to us, they are relevant. Whereas the world issues are not our problems but the politicians, hence irrelevant. But I think it is being a bit irresponsible. I agree that we should care for poeple around us more as we can offer the most immediate help when they are in need. But it doesn't mean that we don't care about the rest. We can always offer help to people who are far from us. We can donate things to them. We can offer solutions to the capable people so that they can execute. But if we don't have the general knowledge, how can we donate to those needy people if we don't know the associated organisations? How can we offer a feasible solutions to the able people to do it if we don't have enough background knowledge? Moreover, we are living in this world, how can we say it is irrelevant to us?

I don't think that argueing about certain issues and discussing issues with friends is the same thing. When we talk about world issues with friends, we don't always argue (maybe some does..) but we discuss. We don't try to win over one another but to discuss which arguments offered by the media is convincing and true and to form new arguments. When we write essays, we write to people whom we do not know to read. We cannot offer a smile or an honest facial expression to make them believed and convinced by what we say. We can only convince them through words. Only when you argue without being too absolute and with balanced point of views then they can be convinced. I think no matter how much you hate people argue with you, you will more or less convinced by balanced arguments. (The truth is poeple don't like to argue with one another)

In a nutshell, there are a lot of things have yet to be learnt. Even if we learn all the way till the day we die, we can never learn all the knowledge on this world. So we should try to think about what we have learned and not feel contented looking at the superficial level of the knowledge.