A Short Investigation of Existence

Write a response of at least 350 words in which you consider the following passage from Phillipe Lejeune's "The Autobiographical Pact (bis)"

"What illusion to believe that we can tell the truth, and to believe that each of us has an individual and autonomous existence! How can we think that in autobiography it is the lived life that produces the text, when it is the text that produces the life!"




While existence can be real and unique for each individual, it is impossible for a piece of writing to contain all the facts of one’s life. The impossibility always results in intended or unintended bias in every written work of which autobiography is not an exception.

Evaluation of existence is a privilege assigned only to the subject of it. From a philosophical viewpoint, the existence of whole universe depends on whether the subject exists or not. If one did not exist, everything around him does not mean anything to him, and therefore nothing can exist. Lejeune’s claim that no one’s existence can be individual or autonomous cannot be verified since it is in his own existence that he thinks so. Unless he has lived in another’s existence and found it same as his own, his claim does not establish. While a whole universe is dependent on individual existences, it is even ridiculous to examine the possibility of autonomous existence.

His claim about the truth does not make sense either as “the truth” might differ in different existences. For example, in the film The Truman Show, the protagonist’s truth is that he lives in the real world for the most part of the movie, and the audience thinks the fact is that Truman lives in a fake world. However, the audience cannot tell definitely that they are not being watched themselves. It is from a great arrogance that Lejeune says no one can speak the truth.

Even if one accepts individual existence and different truths, the idea of a perfect autobiography is only virtual. For an autobiography to be free of bias, it has to be an account of every single fact and only fact of one’s life, which is of course not possible. The logic here is same as how newspapers can be “conservative” or “liberal.” Since a record of all facts is impossible, some details are intentionally or unintentionally left out, which can create a great difference. In a way, the statement that “the text produces the life” is true since the writing of an autobiography gives the writer a chance to modify his life to a one closer to what he would like to have lived.


Note: this is a great topic. I sometimes wonder if my life (literally) is a Truman Show, and I know someone who has gone to a degree of madness in that thought.

The Age of Copycats

Jinsol Lee
Ms. Wilson
AP English Language
September 17 2009

The Age of Copycats

Bernard Werber, a French author, writes in his short story Sweet Totalitarianism about a novel that predicts the consequences of legal human cloning. The book, apparently, sees very accurately the chaos that unlimited human cloning in the society might cause. The society is plagued with politicians using clones to attain infinite military strength and clones being used as objects for scientific experiments. It is hard to ignore these predictions just because they are written in a fiction piece. The use of human clones as a military force is a new view on the cloning issue, and it seems probable. In fact, once it becomes possible to produce humans at will, there would be a high possibility for this to happen, no matter if it is legal or illegal. Politicians have always felt the need to place more power under their own. The availability of infinite human resources can inspire the followers of the more obscure ideologies to take over governments. It is also possible that extremist religions try to form an army of clones and start a full-scale religious war.

Another possible outcome is the traditional idea of using clones for substitute organs. It is the most likely to occur among all potential consequences of human cloning, since pigs are already being used as substitution for human organs. Also likely is the use of human clones as objects of scientific experiments. In this case, an even more intense controversy would sweep the world. First, the religious community will oppose any use of clones that violate the law of nature and diminish the meaning of life. The religious has been criticizing science for employing no morality suitable for their discoveries and inventions. Second, social problems may break out as the wealthy save their lives with expensive substitute organs while the poor die without cure. If the phenomenon continues for a long time, descendants of the wealthy would be the majority of population after a while, which can lead to most of the population sharing certain genetic characteristics. For example, if human cloning were used for medical purposes today for high expenses, there would be inevitably more white survivors than blacks since white people dominate the rich population of the world.

Identity problems may break out as well. It is essentially impossible to grant and discriminate different identities of two genetically alike humans with contemporary technology, which includes photographs and DNA. There are also examples of government’s legal misprocessing for identical twins that possess the same DNA, birthday, and birthplace. Most likely, a solution will not help much even if someone came up with it, a great confusion would have dominated the society by that time. A solution which can, although not effectively nor permanently, alleviate the chaos is confining all clones in a closed place. This idea has been explored by several movies and books, all of which portray negative effects such as the clone rebellion or mass disorder in the society by a great escape of confined clones.

Such effects of the mankind’s attaining the ability to manipulate life are generally skeptical. Even though it might have some light sides as significant developments in the field of medicine, they are not quite worth the lives of countless clones who will be produced for commercial, political, or academic reasons.



Note: cause and effect analysis

The Battle of the Classes

Jinsol Lee
Ms. Wilson
AP English Language
3 September 2009

Which AP to Pick: Chemistry or Physics?

Congratulations! You have already made a good choice by considering AP Chemistry and AP Physics. Chemistry and physics are two great and fundamental courses that most students take as one of their science courses during their high school careers. Having finished AP Chemistry successfully and taking AP Physics, I have a good insight of these two courses. Students who wish to take either of these classes or major in science may find this information helpful.

If you are a high school student who wishes to work at some field that is related to science, you need to take either or both chemistry or physics. It is also very important that you take advanced courses, preferably Advanced Placement, but at least an Honors class. An AP class does a great deal more than shining your college resume; it prepares you for the classes you will take in college. Good knowledge gained through an AP class will help you through the freshman course you choose to take and place you several steps ahead of others. Most people choose the handy option of starting freshman year with a number of AP credits or even starting college in their sophomore year, but it is not your only option. Even if you fail the AP exam, the knowledge is not wasted; however high grades you had in your AP class, the contents of your class was in a much higher quality and much greater amount. You will meet many people choosing not to take their AP credits and aim for a higher GPA.

My chemistry teacher always said AP Chemistry was the hardest AP exam, but I personally disagree with her. I took AP Chemistry as a sophomore along with Algebra 2 and got along fine with it. People generally assume that science is related to math and that one has to be good at math to be good at science. That is a lie, now that there are calculators. The hardest math you will do in chemistry is barely the quadratic equation, and being the bright student considering an AP course, you would be ashamed not to know it. Also, chemistry is more about concepts and understanding than math. There are a lot of concepts, and that is why AP Chemistry could be the hardest AP, not the math. In contrast, AP Physics is more math than chemistry. You would use the four functions in a chemistry course and trigonometry in physics. If you are considering AP Physics B, go ahead and take it (Physics C might need more confidence in math). Yes; physics math is harder than chemistry math, but it will all get easier once you figure out how to apply formulas efficiently. Formulas are, in fact, all there is to physics. Moreover, you are given a sheet of formulas at the actual AP exam. How easy does that sound?

Since you are going to enroll in an AP class, it would be reasonable to expect a greater workload than a regular class. I had two teachers with different teaching styles for my chemistry and physics class. I had way more homework in chemistry than in physics, and I can say it is only reasonable because the new information introduced in chemistry is massive in amount. On the other hand, I had a high A in physics with a workload that is about two thirds of chemistry workload. As mentioned above, physics should not be hard once you know how to use formulas in different situations.

I hope this information succeeded to give you an insight of AP Chemistry and AP Physics. I strongly recommend you to take either of these two courses for your career again. Congratulations again on being a bright student, and good luck on these courses.






I really am not trying to brag; it's called a strategy, apparently. I couldn't lose my credibility by telling the reader that I have actually taken AP Physics for three weeks.