Everyone thinks paper and ink are beautiful,
but somehow everyone forgets that hands are the ones that do that magic.
Humans are the ones who gave names and purposes to everything.
Without humans, nature might be safe and beautiful, but without them, how can anyone know that nature exists?
It was a human who even gave nature the name "nature," yet somehow, humans seem selfish to every eye.
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
142,249 Literary Works • 677,084 Reviews
Hello!
Firstly, please note that I am certainly not a philosopher, so any opinion here is my very unproffesional and possibly biased/prejudiced/dumb/closed-minded opinion.
Having said this, I think that this poem is a real debate-starter! Everyone has their own opinion on this matter, and there's no perfect, true answer anyone can give. So this makes your work very rich: making people think and philosophise is a great skill and makes your poem deeper - or, this is my opinion ; D
Personally, I don't think humans can be classified by one single adjective like "selfish", but rather by many very contradicting adjectives, so I agree with you on that point; however, I also think that paper and ink are beautiful, because thanks to them we can write =D
Back to more technical terms: you do a very good job of laying down the facts and expressing your opinion in just a short text. This is a great talent, however maybe you could have made this a little longer? It might have proven your point better. But, as you did a great job, as I said, in writing it all shortly, this isn't necessarily bad/wrong, it can also be good.
The use of the word "magic" was very intelligent here. Well done! You could have used "the" instead of "that", but "that" works also.
As I said, I'm no philospher. But I don't really understand this...? What do you mean, no one can know nature exists without humans? Unless you mean that humans can't know that it exists if they don't exist? But isn't that kind of obvious...?
"seem (...) to every eye" is very elaborate and nice to read. Well done on that too!
Overall, I enjoyed this poem because it made me think, and decide myself on opinions I hadn't even thought were there. Thank you for sharing this! Please keep writing, and have a wonderful day
- HMMHhehe the potato
This is a really strong piece of writing. People often forget that the hands are the ones that craft. The brains have the ideas too
'hands are what do the magic' makes more sense, as 'the ones that do the magic' makes the hands seem like people. I like this idea, but it is worded a bit clumsily. Maybe something like:
Everyone admires paper and ink,
but forgets the hands behind the magic.
'Beautiful' is a human concept, a made up human word, so without humans, would nature be beautiful?
You say without twice here, which is redundant. But also, if there were no humans, no one would know nature exists because we don't exist. So the logic is flawed because that's just a fundamental concept, no? I think what you mean, though, is that humans are destroying the beautiful nature that they gave names to, without us, it would thrive. It's a nice concept!
The fact that humans coined the word “nature” doesn’t answer the charge that they’re selfish.
Naming something and harming it are separate acts, and the first doesn’t excuse or even relate to the second. Humans are selfish because they destroyed nature, not because they named it. I suppose I am a bit confused on the meaning here?
I guess the first line doesn't relate to the rest of the poem in the way it could do, either.
The central idea of the poem treats naming and knowing as if they were the same as existing: it asks how anyone could know nature exists without humans, but nature’s existence doesn’t depend on anyone knowing it; only our awareness of it does, so the argument quietly shifts from a claim about reality to a claim about knowledge. I might be reading too deeply into this. You're saying nature would be safe and beautiful without humans, but also that beauty is a human concept which only humans can make?
Maybe you could make the claim narrower and truer, and say that humans are the only ones who can appreciate or protect nature, which makes their neglect more blameworthy. It's selfish that they are the ones who called it beautiful yet destroy it.
I like the ideas behind it, but it could do with a more thought-out logic! Sorry if this sounds harsh <3
What beautiful imagery. I love this perspective; it is true that humans create beauty. But isn't nature also beautiful? Nature knows, itself that it exists. My favourite line is: 'but somehow everyone forgets that hands are the ones that do that magic.' Aren't humans magical?
I would say humans are selfish by nature. But if I say that I think you would argue with this so I'm not saying it.
My favorite lines are
"Everyone thinks paper and ink are beautiful,"
I'm saying that paper and ink are beautiful when used for creativity if it's used for schoolwork it's a mess.
The lines I want to agree with are
"Without humans, nature might be safe and beautiful, but without them, how can anyone know that nature exists?
It was a human who even gave nature the name "nature," yet somehow, humans seem selfish to every eye."
Humans are selfish to every eye. And humans are actaully the ones that destroy nature yet I think nature would still exist even without us.And how do we know that humans gave nature the name "nature"