题目内容
There are a great many reasons for studying what philosophers have said in the past. One is that we cannot separate the history of philosophy from that of science. Philosophy is largely discussion about matters on which few people are quite certain, and those few hold opposite opinions. As knowledge increases, philosophy buds off the sciences.We also see how every philosopher reflects the social life of his day. 1 But we can hardly guess what the world will look like to men and women with several generations of communism behind them, who take the brotherhood of man for granted, not as an ideal to be aimed at, but a fact of life, and yet know that this brotherhood was only achieved by ghastly struggles.The study of philosophies should make our own ideas flexible. We are all of us apt to take certain general ideas for granted, and call them common sense. We should learn that other people have held quite different ideas, and that our own have started as very original guesses of philosophers.If a dog could speak, it would probably not distinguish between motion and life. Some primitive men do not do so, and travelers interpret them as saying there are spirits everywhere. 2 In our age of machines we are apt to look for mechanical explanations of everything, yet it is only three hundred years since machines had been developed so far that Descartes first suggested that animal and human bodies were machines.A scientist is apt to think that all the problems of philosophy will ultimately be solved by science. I think this is true for a great many of the questions on which philosophers still argue. 3 For example, Plato thought that when we saw something, one ray of light came to it from the sun, and another from our eyes, and that seeing was something like feeling with a stick.We now know that the light comes from the sun, and is reflected into our eyes. We don"t know in much detail how the changes in our eyes give rise to sensation. 4 But there is every reason to think that we learn more about the physiology of the brain, we shall do so, and that the great philosophical problems about knowledge and will are going to be pretty fully cleared up. 5 But if our descendants know the answers to these questions and others which perplex us today, there will still be one field of which they do not know, namely the future.However exact our science, we cannot know it as we know the past. Philosophy may be described as argument about things of which we are ignorant. And where science gives us a hope of knowledge it is often reasonable to suspend judgment. That is one reason why Marx and Engels quite rightly wrote so little on many philosophical problems which interested their contemporaries.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
DBF:零件号C(2)，零件名称C(10)，单价N(10)，规格C(8) 使用零件.DBF:项目号C(2)，零件号C(2)，数量Ⅰ 项目.DBF:项目号C(2)，项目名称C(20)，项目负责人C(10)，电话C(20) 查询与项目“s2”(项目号)所使用的任意一个零件相同的项目号、项目名称、零件号和零件名称，使用的SQL语句是： SELECT 项目.项目号，项目名称，使用零件.零件号，零件名称； FROM 项目，使用零件，零件 WHERE 项目.项目号=使用零件.项目号 13.
In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. 1 often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a 2 is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use 3 better than women.Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics 4 the effect of a network on 5 using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, 6 in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now 7 boards and the other 400, the latter, 8 , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%.The really 9 finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male 10 . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this 11 , from interruptions to women"s careers to old-fashioned 12 . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully 13 by the effect of executives" networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more 14 board; women don"t seem to be able to.Women could just have 15 connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing 16 acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal 17 through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing 18 of men on boards and a male 19 for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be 20 if talented women don"t stay on the radar.
For the moment, mind-reading is still science fiction. But that may not be true for much longer. Several lines of inquiry are converging on the idea that the neurological activity of the brain can be decoded directly, and people"s thoughts revealed without being spoken.Just imagine the potential benefits. Such a development would allow both the fit and the disabled to operate machines merely by choosing what they want those machines to do. It would permit the profoundly handicapped to communicate more easily than is now possible even with the text-based speech engines used by the likes of Stephen Hawking. It might unlock the mental prisons of people apparently in comas, who nevertheless show some signs of neural activity. For the able-bodied, it could allow workers to dictate documents silently to computers simply by thinking about what they want to say. The most profound implication, however, is that it would abolish the ability to lie.Who could object to that You will not bear false witness. Tell the truth, and shame the Devil. Transparency, which speaks for honesty in management, is put forward as the answer to most of today"s evils. But honestly speaking, the truth of the matter is that this would lead to disaster, for lying is at the heart of civilization. People are not the only creatures who lie. Species from squids to chimpanzees have been caught doing it from time to time. But only human beings have turned lying into an art. Call it diplomacy, public relations or simple good manners: lying is one of the things that make the world go round.The occasional untruth makes domestic life possible, is essential in the office and forms a crucial part of parenting. Politics might be more entertaining without lies—"The prime minister has my full support" would be translated as, "If that half-wit persists in this insane course we"ll all be out on our ears"—but a party system would be hard to sustain without the semblance of loyalty that dishonesty permits.The truly scary prospect, however, is the effect mind-reading would have on relations between the state and the individual. In a world in which the authorities could peep at people"s thoughts, speaking truth to power would no longer be brave: it would be unavoidable. Information technology already means that physical privacy has become a scarce commodity. Websites track your interests and purchases. Mobile phones give away your location. Video cameras record what you are up to. Lose mental privacy as well, and there really will be nowhere. It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that ______.
For the moment, mind-reading is still science fiction. But that may not be true for much longer. Several lines of inquiry are converging on the idea that the neurological activity of the brain can be decoded directly, and people"s thoughts revealed without being spoken.Just imagine the potential benefits. Such a development would allow both the fit and the disabled to operate machines merely by choosing what they want those machines to do. It would permit the profoundly handicapped to communicate more easily than is now possible even with the text-based speech engines used by the likes of Stephen Hawking. It might unlock the mental prisons of people apparently in comas, who nevertheless show some signs of neural activity. For the able-bodied, it could allow workers to dictate documents silently to computers simply by thinking about what they want to say. The most profound implication, however, is that it would abolish the ability to lie.Who could object to that You will not bear false witness. Tell the truth, and shame the Devil. Transparency, which speaks for honesty in management, is put forward as the answer to most of today"s evils. But honestly speaking, the truth of the matter is that this would lead to disaster, for lying is at the heart of civilization. People are not the only creatures who lie. Species from squids to chimpanzees have been caught doing it from time to time. But only human beings have turned lying into an art. Call it diplomacy, public relations or simple good manners: lying is one of the things that make the world go round.The occasional untruth makes domestic life possible, is essential in the office and forms a crucial part of parenting. Politics might be more entertaining without lies—"The prime minister has my full support" would be translated as, "If that half-wit persists in this insane course we"ll all be out on our ears"—but a party system would be hard to sustain without the semblance of loyalty that dishonesty permits.The truly scary prospect, however, is the effect mind-reading would have on relations between the state and the individual. In a world in which the authorities could peep at people"s thoughts, speaking truth to power would no longer be brave: it would be unavoidable. Information technology already means that physical privacy has become a scarce commodity. Websites track your interests and purchases. Mobile phones give away your location. Video cameras record what you are up to. Lose mental privacy as well, and there really will be nowhere. What"s the author"s attitude toward the use of mind-reading
微信支付 
支付宝支付