Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): I wouldn't recommend this book... lacks credibility. . In his book, The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz, embodies four principles for experiencing personal freedom in life.  He says that we should be impeccable with our words, not to take anything personally, don't make assumptions, and to always do our best. The basis for some of the agreements we make with ourselves stem from early childhood training through a series of rewards and punishments from our parents.  He calls this process "domestication" (p. 6). Ruiz says that 95% of the beliefs we hold are nothing but lies and that most of our agreements are based upon the fear of rejection.  The agreements that he gives are meant to free us from the emotional bonds that get in the way of our personal energy and to transform our lives.    While there are various nuggets of truth throughout the book, some of it goes off into the abyss where he takes a thought and carries it to what I would consider to be to be an illogical conclusion. In some instances he uses biblical scripture to support his claims; however, in looking further, he takes some of the passages from the Bible out of context.  Some of his ideas are presented as if they were new ideas, but I would think most of us by a young age, should already an understanding of these principles. Although his book has been highly rated, I hold the position that Mr. Ruiz lacks credibility and logic as a writer, therefore, losing good standing with me as a reader.    According to Ruiz, as children we are not given the opportunity to choose our own beliefs.  When we go against the rules we are punished (or rewarded for compliance). The fear of rejection leads us to agree with, or become something that we are not. In essence, we become a carbon copy of someone else, such as our parents.  He says our normal tendencies are lost and we judge other people based upon these agreements.  He boldly states, lacking statistical data to back it up, that 95% of our beliefs are based upon a lie (13).    The implication is that we are merely nothing more than a society of mindless, "domesticated" individuals, hurting ourselves, judging and victimizing other people along the way.  This kind of thinking negates the teachings associated with parenthood and the positive aspects they bring to our lives. By his interpretation, if 95% of what we believe is a lie, then 95% of what our parents taught us is also a lie.  I would disagree.  There are many people who exist today as viable, productive members of society who I'm sure would point out they too became a copy of someone else's beliefs and values.  If these role models are only filling our heads with lies and teaching us how not to be ourselves, by his interpretation, we don't need parents, teachers, or leaders. He undermines our personal paradigms and omits that as adults we do have the ability to choose a different path, which I believe is our right of passage. By his rational we lose the ability to choose our own destiny.  Instead, we become victims of it.      One of the few things we agree upon is his first agreement, be impeccable with your word; however, he misquotes the bible (John 1:1) when he says "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God."  He uses it to epitomize the use of "word" as in what one speaks (26).  Looking a little further down in that passage, it also says "The word was made flesh and dwelt among us".  This passage is not talking about a form of speech, or speaking, but rather "Jesus Christ".  Christ became flesh and dwelt among us.  In that same chapter he says that "sin begins with rejection of yourself" (31).  However, in Christianity it says that sin is a transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) and that sin is neglecting to do God's will (James 4:7).  It's not about self, but about disobeying God's ordinances. While I agree that watching what we say is something we all need to strive for, this is not a new concept.  Most children have learned by the age of 6 that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all.    In his second agreement, don't take anything personally; he says that nothing people do is because of you. While this is true to some degree, he leads the reader down a path of illogical extremes when he says that even if someone took a gun and shot you in the head, it was nothing personal.  So in essence, when Mary Jo Buttafuoco was shot by Amy Fisher, her expression of displeasure regarding Amy's behavior was nothing more than a fundamental form of projection because according to Ruiz "you are dealing with yourself, not me" (51).  No, realistically, Mary Jo Buttafuoco was shot because Amy Fisher wanted her dead. This kind of logic encourages victims to remain in dysfunctional relationships and perpetrators to continue abusing victims.  As an American, I'm glad that someone took 9/11 personally.     According to Mr. Ruiz he takes neither destructive nor constructive criticism.  It seems arrogant to place myself so far above reproach, that I would turn a deaf ear to all forms of criticism.  When my College writing professor, gave me his opinion regarding my work, if I were following the authors line of reasoning, I would believe that my professor was "trying to poison my mind and was feeding me his emotional garbage" as Mr. Ruiz suggests (49). I would rather believe that my instructor has my best interests at heart and is seeking to teach me how to become a better writer.    Another agreement is about not making assumptions in life.  He says when we make assumptions, in essence, we create unnecessary drama.  Unfortunately we live in a world where that is not entirely possible.  Assumption is a necessary part of a thought and reason; even within the scientific community a hypothesis (or assumption) is formed in order to test a theory.  In order come to school each day I must make assumptions that my instructor has a college degree, and that he or she must be reliable enough in life to make it to work everyday.    In his forth agreement, always do your best, he claims it is based upon the actions of the other three agreements, stating they will only work if you do your best.  Again, these are fundamental principles that almost any child has learned.      While Ruiz does indeed present some viable ideas, his concepts begin to unravel when he doesn't back up his statements with facts, but instead takes a basic concept and follows an illogical line of reasoning to reach his final conclusion.  I can't completely discount everything that he says, but he lost credibility with me by some of his assumptions and weak rationalizations.
Output (English): NEG