题目内容
Passage Two In general, our society is becoming one of giant enterprises directed by a bureaucratic management in which man becomes a small, well-oiled cog (齿轮) in the machinery. The oiling is done with higher wages, well-ventilated factories and piped (播送的) music, and by psychologists and "human-relations" experts; yet all this oiling does not alter the fact that man has become powerless, that he does not wholeheartedly participate in his work and that he is bored with it. In fact, the blue-and the white-collar workers have become economic puppets (木偶) who dance to the tune of automated machines and bureaucratic management. The worker and employee are anxious, not only because they might find themselves out of a job, they are anxious also because they are unable to acquire any real satisfaction or interest in life. They live and die without ever having confronted the fundamental realities of human existence as emotionally and intellectually independent and productive human beings. Those higher up on the social ladder are no less anxious. Their lives are no less empty than those of their subordinates. They are even more insecure in some respects. They are in a highly competitive race. To be promoted or to fall behind is not a matter of salary but even more a matter of self-respect. When they apply for their first job, they are tested for intelligence as well as for the right mixture of submissiveness and independence. From that moment on they are tested again—by the psychologists, for whom testing is a big business, and by their superiors, who judge their behavior, sociability, capacity to, get along, etc. This constant need to prove that one is as good as or better than one’s fellow-competitor creates constant anxiety and stress, the very causes of unhappiness and illness. Am I suggesting that we should return to the pre-industrial mode of production or to nineteenth century "free enterprise capitalism" Certainly not. Problems are never solved by returning to a stage which one has already outgrown. I suggest transforming our social system from a bureaucratically managed industrialism in which maximal production and consumption are ends in themselves into a humanist industrialism in which-man and full development of his potentialities—those of love and reason—are the aims of all social arrangements. Production and consumption should serve only as means to this end, and should be prevented from ruling man. From the passage we can infer that real happiness of life belongs to those ______ .
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage One Two related paradoxes also emerge from the same basic conception of the aesthetic experience. The first was given extended consideration by Hegel, who argued roughly as follows: our sensuous attention and that gives to the work of art its peculiar individuality. Because it addresses itself to our sensory appreciation, the work of art is essentially concrete, to be understood by an act of perception rather than by a process of discursive thought. At the same time, our understanding of the work of art is in part intellectual; we seek in it a conceptual content, which it presents to us in the form of an idea. One purpose of critical interpretation is to expound this idea in discursive form—to give the equivalent of the content of the work of art in another, nonsensuous idiom. But criticism can never succeed in this task, for, by separating the content from the particular form, it abolishes its individuality. The content presented then ceases to be the exact content of that work of art. In losing its individuality, the content loses its aesthetic reality; it thus ceases to be a reason for attending to the particular work and that first attracted our critical: attention. It cannot be this that we saw in the original work and that explained its power over us. For this content, displayed in the discursive idiom of the critical intellect, is no more than a husk, a discarded relic of a meaning that eluded us in the act of seizing it. If the content is to be the true object of aesthetic interest, it must remain wedded to its individuality, it cannot be detached from its "sensuous embodiment" without being detached from itself. Content is, therefore, inseparable from form and form in turn inseparable from content. (It is the form that it is only by virtue of the content that it embodies.) Hegel’s argument is the archetype of many, all aimed at showing that it is both necessary to distinguish form from content and also impossible to do so. This paradox may be resolved by rejecting either of its premises, but, as with Kant’s antinomy, neither premise seems dispensable. To suppose that content and form are inseparable is, in effect, to dismiss both ideas as illusory, since no two works of art can then share either a content or a form—the form being definitive of each work’s individuality. In this case, no one could ever justify his interest in a work of art by reference to its meaning. The intensity of aesthetic interest becomes a puzzling, and ultimately inexplicable, feature of our mental life, If, on the other hand, we insist that content and form are separable, we shall never be able to find, through a study of content, the reason for attending to the particular work of art that intrigues us. Every work of art stands proxy for its paraphrase. An impassable gap then opens between aesthetic experience and its ground, and the claim that aesthetic experience is intrinsically valuable is thrown in doubt. Which of the following is NOT what Hegel believed
Passage Two In general, our society is becoming one of giant enterprises directed by a bureaucratic management in which man becomes a small, well-oiled cog (齿轮) in the machinery. The oiling is done with higher wages, well-ventilated factories and piped (播送的) music, and by psychologists and "human-relations" experts; yet all this oiling does not alter the fact that man has become powerless, that he does not wholeheartedly participate in his work and that he is bored with it. In fact, the blue-and the white-collar workers have become economic puppets (木偶) who dance to the tune of automated machines and bureaucratic management. The worker and employee are anxious, not only because they might find themselves out of a job, they are anxious also because they are unable to acquire any real satisfaction or interest in life. They live and die without ever having confronted the fundamental realities of human existence as emotionally and intellectually independent and productive human beings. Those higher up on the social ladder are no less anxious. Their lives are no less empty than those of their subordinates. They are even more insecure in some respects. They are in a highly competitive race. To be promoted or to fall behind is not a matter of salary but even more a matter of self-respect. When they apply for their first job, they are tested for intelligence as well as for the right mixture of submissiveness and independence. From that moment on they are tested again—by the psychologists, for whom testing is a big business, and by their superiors, who judge their behavior, sociability, capacity to, get along, etc. This constant need to prove that one is as good as or better than one’s fellow-competitor creates constant anxiety and stress, the very causes of unhappiness and illness. Am I suggesting that we should return to the pre-industrial mode of production or to nineteenth century "free enterprise capitalism" Certainly not. Problems are never solved by returning to a stage which one has already outgrown. I suggest transforming our social system from a bureaucratically managed industrialism in which maximal production and consumption are ends in themselves into a humanist industrialism in which-man and full development of his potentialities—those of love and reason—are the aims of all social arrangements. Production and consumption should serve only as means to this end, and should be prevented from ruling man. The real cause of the anxiety of the workers and employees is that ______ .
食品安全事故屡有发生2．人们对食品的安全越来越担心3．怎样才能解决好食品的安全问题
Don’t Share Too Much Information with Co-Workers There are several reasons for not sharing personal information with your co-workers. You may not want to burden your co-workers. As I alluded to, also, did not trust your co-workers to keep your secret. There are people around, and we all know someone like this, who will think nothing of talking about you. Some people are very matter-of-fact about it and just assume there’s nothing wrong with telling others whatever you told them. Some may be malicious and intend to cause harm by spreading information. By the time you find out you’ve shared your story with the wrong person, it’s usually too late. Those of you who have been around dogs know that a dog will show its submissiveness to a more dominant dog by exposing its belly. When you share personal information, especially information that shows your weaknesses, you may be "exposing your belly" to your co-workers. If your position at work requires you to exhibit strength and control, such as a managerial position, you may be showing just the opposite by sharing certain information. Here’s what Elizabeth Mitchell, a senior editor, had to say about this," Decisions are made and impressions formed about us while at work that are used for different reasons than those with our families and friends. For example, a person being considered for a promotion would benefit from having an image of strength, excellent judgment and good interpersonal skills. How might your recent disclosure to your colleagues that you are divorcing your alcoholic husband, just obtained a restraining order in fear for your life and are worried about making your house payments, affect your chances for promotion You can’t sleep, fear you are depressed and need support from friends during this trying time. In this situation, a wise employee would make an appointment with an Employee Assistance Program counselor and use his or her friends and family for support, letting colleagues at work know, perhaps, that he or she is divorcing but keeping the details scant. " As mentioned earlier, revealing too much about yourself may give people the wrong impression or rather the impression you don’t want them to have. In general, you do want to preserve some level of privacy. Susan Heathfield says, "When you have worked in a particular work place for a long time, people will tend to know more about your personal world, simply from longevity. As an example, they know when you took a week off work when your mother died. They know you left for the day when your son got sick at school. This level of knowledge about each other is fine and, depending on the work place, almost unavoidable ..." Brian Mairs, a career expert, gets straight to the point, "If you don’t want to hear it in the neighborhood pub, don’t mention it around the water cooler. If it is a thing of pride (new car, new house, new baby, etc), go ahead and share the joy. If it is a thing of privacy (family problems, etc. ) keep it to yourself at work. Find a professional therapist, or somebody you trust to keep a confidence (such as a Priest or Rabbi), to discuss such things. " As with anything else, you are the only one who can decide what, and how much information you want to share with your co-workers. The words of wisdom provided by my colleagues certainly give you something to think about. In the end, though, the decision is yours. And the consequences are yours to deal with. If opening up your personal life is what you feel comfortable to do, realize that there will be no line between the "work you" and the "real you". That may be fine for some people, and as a matter of fact preferable for many. A lot of people would feel uncomfortable and unhappy exhibiting a different persona at work than they do at home. Do what you need to do, as long as it doesn’t interfere with doing your job. What CANNOT be inferred according to Brian Mairs
微信支付 
支付宝支付