I assume when you say that you wrote this semi-formal philosophical paper that it isn't for a specific class? I assume that since you say you've been writing it for about a year. To begin with, even if it isn't for a class, I would suggest copy editing it. It's a simple thing, but things like an overuse of commas and inconsistent capitalization after colons and semi-colons makes it look unprofessional. So does using words like "anyways" at the beginning of a paragraph. You can call this nit-picking, but if you're presenting this to university professors, if you want this to be taken more seriously than an average internet blog post, your tone should reflect your intention.
I appreciate that you've chosen to share your thoughts. I appreciate that you took the time to write them down. I don't know what your end goal is. Sometimes writing is good simply to get ideas out of your head and into the "real world." I see nothing wrong with this. However, if the point of your paper is to make an argument, to convince someone of a viewpoint, I think your paper falls short. You make very large generalizations about the conscious experience. You make false dichotomies and then choose one side as the absolute proof (such as: "How they interact is such a mysteriously illogical phenomenon that we have no choice but to assume that they do not interact, and that it must be either that all is conscious, or all is unconscious (or you're a dualist, in which case you believe that both conscious and unconscious things exist but do not mingle)." ) Who is making these arguments? You quote almost no one in the entire paper but speak as if these are the only options available. I'm not saying you need to appeal to authority, but if you're going to make statements like that I feel like you need to present more than your personal opinion.
All of that being said, it feels like you're focusing mostly on making a logic based argument. I will admit that I'm bias against these types of writings, though not just in your paper (logic classes are a large reason I decided against a philosophy major, they always seemed like really narrow, trite arguments to me).
I hope you don't take this as too harsh of a critique. Again, I appreciate you sharing. I think it would make an interesting conversation and I would be genuinely interested in a discussion if we met in person. As an academic paper, however, I think it has a ways to go.
I hope that's useful. Best of luck.
I appreciate that you've chosen to share your thoughts. I appreciate that you took the time to write them down. I don't know what your end goal is. Sometimes writing is good simply to get ideas out of your head and into the "real world." I see nothing wrong with this. However, if the point of your paper is to make an argument, to convince someone of a viewpoint, I think your paper falls short. You make very large generalizations about the conscious experience. You make false dichotomies and then choose one side as the absolute proof (such as: "How they interact is such a mysteriously illogical phenomenon that we have no choice but to assume that they do not interact, and that it must be either that all is conscious, or all is unconscious (or you're a dualist, in which case you believe that both conscious and unconscious things exist but do not mingle)." ) Who is making these arguments? You quote almost no one in the entire paper but speak as if these are the only options available. I'm not saying you need to appeal to authority, but if you're going to make statements like that I feel like you need to present more than your personal opinion.
All of that being said, it feels like you're focusing mostly on making a logic based argument. I will admit that I'm bias against these types of writings, though not just in your paper (logic classes are a large reason I decided against a philosophy major, they always seemed like really narrow, trite arguments to me).
I hope you don't take this as too harsh of a critique. Again, I appreciate you sharing. I think it would make an interesting conversation and I would be genuinely interested in a discussion if we met in person. As an academic paper, however, I think it has a ways to go.
I hope that's useful. Best of luck.
