题目内容
No one can be a great thinker who does not realize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think. Not that it is solely, or chiefly, to form great thinkers that freedom of thinking is required. On the contrary, it is as much or even more indispensable to enable average human beings to attain the mental stature which they are capable of. There have been, and may again be, great individual thinkers in a general atmosphere of mental slavery. But there never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere an intellectually active people. Where any people has made a temporary approach to such a character, it has been be- cause the dread of heterodox speculation was for a time suspended. Where there is a tacit convention that prince-pies are not to be disputed: which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which had made some periods of history so remarkable. Never when controversy avoided the subjects which was large and important enough to kindle enthusiasm was the mind of a people stirred up from its foundations and the impulse given which raised even persons of the most ordinary intellect to something of the dignity of thinking beings.He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels the most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and ac- companied by what they offer as refutations, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be a- ble to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form: he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know; they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrines which they themselves pro- fess. They do not know the doctrines which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with an- other is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. (614) The best title for this passage is().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
INTERVIEWER: Over the years, you have all kinds of people you are dealing with, I guess, but, is it—in the main—hardened criminals BROWN: In a community of this size, those who are accused of crime vary a great deal from those who may be accused of crime in the metropolitan area.INTERVIEWER: Uh-uh.BROWN: During the past twenty years, I think we’ve had only two, possibly three, who have been charged with murder, for example. And those have occurred under circumstances that perhaps are a little different than you’d find in the large areas. In other words, we don’t have Mafia type of organizations here. It’s just an individual who finder some force of circumstances has committed perhaps any kind of a crime. And there are probably more burglaries committed in these areas than, perhaps, any other one form of crime.INTERVIEWER: What sort of people burglarizeBROWN: I would say the largest percentage of those who have committed burglaries in these areas are young people. Many of them are committed by young people who want to get a case of beer, or a few cartons of cigarettes, or some food and things of this kind not serious burglary. Now we’ve had a number of... we’ve had two or three bank robberies in this area, and those have heen committed by individuals who have had some record in the past.INTERVIEWER: Uh-mm.BROWN: Now we get a certain percentage, of course, of criminals who are recidivous, and they’ve been caught for committing another offence.INTERVIEWER: This is... uh...BROWN: That type of individual. I think ... uh... uh... we have great difficulty in dealing with. Many times when a child comes into Juvenile Court, he’s had trouble with his parents He can’t communicate with his parents. His parents are almost ready to shove him out—and sometimes, they have shoved them out. I’ve been convinced over many, many years that there are some people, probably, who should never have children. They’re simply not equipped emotionally, or educatfonally, or otherwise, to have children. Really, they... they don’t know how to raise children, and they produce some pretty poor products.INTERVIEWER: And you realize, possibly, that the parties you should be dealing with are the parents... really, more than the children.BROWN: You do try to deal with, of course, these parents. Sometimes, rather unsuccessfully. Some of them are very hostile not only toward the children—they’re hostile toward the court, to the system. And I think probably the saddest cases in all the system are found in juvenile courts. Because here there are youngsters who have not reached the age of discretion or good judgment, who haven’t been able to meet the problems of life as they have come to them. So, we talk to them about all of these things. I do, at least, talk to them about their problems and about their families and I have always left the door wide open for youngsters to come in to see me personally if they haven’t been able to get along.INTERVIEWER: What do you do if you have a parent hostile toward the court Are there any legal recourses there Isn’t there a legal responsibility the parent has...BROWN: Yes, indeed there are. The parents have a responsibility, of course, to support and take care of their children. If we find that the child is being damaged by remaining in the home—and this does happen—if he’s damaged remaining in the home, the parents— we’ve had child-abuse cases. Of course, we can take the child out of the home. We don’t dissolve the parental relationship. We take the child out. of the home and put him in a foster home. The hope is always to get them back with their parents as soon as we can.INTERVIEWER: Could even be worse, I suppose, in some cases, than the original conditions the fosterBROWN: One of the problems that can be developed is that the child may want to talk about what’s going on. See He may have problems. If he does have, and has no place to go to discuss them—psychologically, this is bad for the child. So, I demanded a list of every child in foster homes under my jurisdiction. And then whenever we placed someone in a foster home, we would fix a date at that time—two months, three months or what have you, later—for a hearing. And the child would be brought in. I’d have a chance to talk to the child.... "How’re things going" "Any problems..." "How’re you being treated... " Find out about him. Because you don’t want these things—You don’t want them to get lost, like a few people have been in mental institutions, you know! INTERVIEWER: Isn’t it a bit difficult to make a decision Are there any times when you’re torn between uh... BROWN: Yes. I think... I think in most cases... if you believe that the most important moment in the life of this person who has been convicted of a crime is when he comes before you for sentencing, then you are going to spend time and thought in determining what is going to be the best not only for society, but for the person himself. Because most of these people are not going to serve a lifetime in. the penitentiary. They’re going to be back out into society sooner or later. Even some convicted murderers have come back out in society. So, you have to think in terms of rehabilitation, hoping that there will be some rehabilitation.INTERVIEWER: Yeah. Brown impresses us as a () judge.
INTERVIEWER: Over the years, you have all kinds of people you are dealing with, I guess, but, is it—in the main—hardened criminals BROWN: In a community of this size, those who are accused of crime vary a great deal from those who may be accused of crime in the metropolitan area.INTERVIEWER: Uh-uh.BROWN: During the past twenty years, I think we’ve had only two, possibly three, who have been charged with murder, for example. And those have occurred under circumstances that perhaps are a little different than you’d find in the large areas. In other words, we don’t have Mafia type of organizations here. It’s just an individual who finder some force of circumstances has committed perhaps any kind of a crime. And there are probably more burglaries committed in these areas than, perhaps, any other one form of crime.INTERVIEWER: What sort of people burglarizeBROWN: I would say the largest percentage of those who have committed burglaries in these areas are young people. Many of them are committed by young people who want to get a case of beer, or a few cartons of cigarettes, or some food and things of this kind not serious burglary. Now we’ve had a number of... we’ve had two or three bank robberies in this area, and those have heen committed by individuals who have had some record in the past.INTERVIEWER: Uh-mm.BROWN: Now we get a certain percentage, of course, of criminals who are recidivous, and they’ve been caught for committing another offence.INTERVIEWER: This is... uh...BROWN: That type of individual. I think ... uh... uh... we have great difficulty in dealing with. Many times when a child comes into Juvenile Court, he’s had trouble with his parents He can’t communicate with his parents. His parents are almost ready to shove him out—and sometimes, they have shoved them out. I’ve been convinced over many, many years that there are some people, probably, who should never have children. They’re simply not equipped emotionally, or educatfonally, or otherwise, to have children. Really, they... they don’t know how to raise children, and they produce some pretty poor products.INTERVIEWER: And you realize, possibly, that the parties you should be dealing with are the parents... really, more than the children.BROWN: You do try to deal with, of course, these parents. Sometimes, rather unsuccessfully. Some of them are very hostile not only toward the children—they’re hostile toward the court, to the system. And I think probably the saddest cases in all the system are found in juvenile courts. Because here there are youngsters who have not reached the age of discretion or good judgment, who haven’t been able to meet the problems of life as they have come to them. So, we talk to them about all of these things. I do, at least, talk to them about their problems and about their families and I have always left the door wide open for youngsters to come in to see me personally if they haven’t been able to get along.INTERVIEWER: What do you do if you have a parent hostile toward the court Are there any legal recourses there Isn’t there a legal responsibility the parent has...BROWN: Yes, indeed there are. The parents have a responsibility, of course, to support and take care of their children. If we find that the child is being damaged by remaining in the home—and this does happen—if he’s damaged remaining in the home, the parents— we’ve had child-abuse cases. Of course, we can take the child out of the home. We don’t dissolve the parental relationship. We take the child out. of the home and put him in a foster home. The hope is always to get them back with their parents as soon as we can.INTERVIEWER: Could even be worse, I suppose, in some cases, than the original conditions the fosterBROWN: One of the problems that can be developed is that the child may want to talk about what’s going on. See He may have problems. If he does have, and has no place to go to discuss them—psychologically, this is bad for the child. So, I demanded a list of every child in foster homes under my jurisdiction. And then whenever we placed someone in a foster home, we would fix a date at that time—two months, three months or what have you, later—for a hearing. And the child would be brought in. I’d have a chance to talk to the child.... "How’re things going" "Any problems..." "How’re you being treated... " Find out about him. Because you don’t want these things—You don’t want them to get lost, like a few people have been in mental institutions, you know! INTERVIEWER: Isn’t it a bit difficult to make a decision Are there any times when you’re torn between uh... BROWN: Yes. I think... I think in most cases... if you believe that the most important moment in the life of this person who has been convicted of a crime is when he comes before you for sentencing, then you are going to spend time and thought in determining what is going to be the best not only for society, but for the person himself. Because most of these people are not going to serve a lifetime in. the penitentiary. They’re going to be back out into society sooner or later. Even some convicted murderers have come back out in society. So, you have to think in terms of rehabilitation, hoping that there will be some rehabilitation.INTERVIEWER: Yeah. It seems that Brown has a (n)()attitude toward the way mental institutions work.
The story of Polly Klaas’ murder by a man with a history of violence galvanized California voters into passing the state’s three-strikes-and-you’re-out law in 1994. Two dozen states and the federal government have now adopted similar laws. Still, only in California can conviction on any third felony put someone behind bars for life. That singularity points to what is wrong with the California law, despite its emotionally wrenching origins.Eleven years after Polly was snatched from her upstairs bedroom and murdered, voters are troubled by other stories--about the Army veteran who stole $153 worth of videotapes or the father who pinched a box of diapers for his baby, both now in prison for life, and about the $31,000 that taxpayers pony up every year to house such individuals. Those tales should push voters to pass Proposition 66, correcting a gross injustice while reserving the harshest punishment for those who commit the worst crimes.Proposition 66 would limit third-strike offenses to serious or violent felonies; that’s the law many voters now say they thought they passed back in 1994. Excluded would be crimes like petty theft, passing a bad check or holding a small amount of drugs. These offenses would remain felonies for repeat offenders, who could still get longer prison terms for each new crime. Only the life sentence is excluded.Of California’s 7,300 third-strikers, 4,200 are doing 25 years to life for a nonserious or nonviolent felony. Proposition 66 also requires judges to resentence these third-strikers, meaning some who have already served several years behind bars may be freed.Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley first campaigned for office in 2000 arguing that the 1994 law was unduly harsh and wisely promising not to charge as strikes most nonviolent, nonserious felonies without a good reason. Because Cooley has made good on that promise, his opposition to Proposition 66 is particularly disappointing. He--along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oakland Mayor and former Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Bill Loekyer--now insists, wrongly in our view, that the measure would flood the streets with predators. Those who might be released would have already done time for their crimes, just not life.Proposition 66 does not eliminate the three-strikes law. It restores voters’ original intent to keep violent criminals off the street for good. That said, like almost every initiative, Proposition 66 is not a model of nuanced legislation. It goes too far in narrowing the universe of "third strikes". If it passes, lawmakers in Sacramento should reinstate serious offenses like burglary and arson to that list.Then again, if Sacramento had fixed the three-strikes law in the first place, and not been so cowered by the fear of seeming "soft on crime", this proposition wouldn’t be needed now. California’s three-strikes-and-you’re-out law basically means that ().
The top U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan says NATO, Afghan and Pakistani forces will conduct more coordinated operations against Taliban insurgents on both sides of the AfghanPakistani border. In an interview with the Associated Press on Saturday, General David Petraeus says forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan have operated in very close coordination in the past two months. He said security forces of both countries will have more opportunities to coordinate as earlier gains are solidified. The Associated Press says it spoke with the general on Christmas Day as he flew around Afghanistan greeting NATO forces, and the general praised Pakistan for its counter-insurgency efforts in the past two years, particularly in the Swat Valley, the North West Frontier and northwestern tribal regions. What was the general’s schedule for Christmas().
微信支付 
支付宝支付