Editing Gandhi's Newbie Writing

First of all I would like to clarify that correcting Gandhi’s writing doesn’t feel exactly assertive; he is master Gandhi. Yeah, I know he is human and makes mistakes and blah blah blah. But, c’mon, there’s a difference between him and Paris Hilton.

I'M AM PREPARED

That's the problem: trust. We are used to thinking that because of someone's trajectory they will turn out to be what we expect them to: perfect or not-perfect (sometimes). Well, as famous philosopher Hannah Montana said: nobody's perfect. Even Gandhi. He, as well as consumerist-adverts now a days, uses a persuasive method that isn't entirely correct in terms of rhetoric in this speech.

- Hasty generalization: "Nevertheless, I do feel, as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe, there is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives." He doesn't give us enough examples when he refers to what the poor villagers of Mysore felt. I'm sure not all of them felt the same way and maybe it doesn't relate to with what he felt. This could also qualify in a "misinterpreting the evidence" fallacy because the examples don't support the conclusion. 

- Wrong ending: "It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being and thanks to the marvellous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life." He begins the sentence speaking about a law and he ends it by saying that some-guy proved something related with the law. The beginning doesn't lead to the end. It looks more as if he were promoting Sir J. C. Bose's work rather than arguing  the state of the law he just mentioned. 

- Fallacy of ignorance: "He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love." To believe God exists, you must have faith and base yourself on truth and love, is what he is saying. Since he can prove his argument with the example from the people of Mysore, his conclusion is absolute: to know there is a God you must have faith. There's just a itty bitty problem...WHAT IF I DON'T WANT TO? What now huh? 

Fallacies are really hard to deal with, for the read and the writer. Sometimes, the author's purpose isn't to fool people with a fallacy, since they are at times hard to avoid. We must not be fooled by them. They are not entirely bad. This doesn't mean we must let them go, we have to be trained and prepared readers just like the writer si for us. 

I bet I have more fallacies than Gandhi in this entry...
"First of all I would like to clarify that correcting Gandhi’s spelling doesn’t feel exactly assertive; he is master Gandhi. Yeah, I know he is human and makes mistakes and blah blah blah. But, c’mon, there’s a difference between him and Paris Hilton." - FALLACY ALERT!