issue 79 求各位斧正
79. It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.Writea response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
29分46秒 546个字
In the statement, we learned that the writer suggested that it would be more harmful to compromise one’s own belief or principal than to adhere to them. At first glance, compromising is doubtless not a word representing some optimism meaning, which would make the statement seemed plausible. However, after carefully and critically consideration, I realize that this statement can not be regarded as tenable or reasonable, because there are some specific situation will undermine the statement, meanwhile, the basic logical contrary behind the statement doesn’t seem that pellucid and simple as it looks like.
To begin with, we have to admit that sometimes compromising one’s own belief is not a valuable conduct that deserved applaud, in fact, in some specifics situation, it is a kind of conduct that will be treated as failure and scandle. For example, where one’s motherland was attacked by other country, one’s homeland is besieged by the enemy, some people will change their stance, compromising their love of country to the need for life, and they will betray their people, helping the enemy attacking their country, in order to get a good life without being killed or hurt, like those people adhere to their belief ,their faith in their motherland, fighting to the end.
Since war is much less frequently than before, there is still some example on our daily life, will serve to prove the statement, in some extend, is true. If a scientist can not hold on his belief in searching the beauty of nature, he might alter his determination all the time and this will lead him to nothing, far from being success in finding some exciting theory of the nature. If a polictian is weak in keeping his belief, he might be control by giant business, which will force the Politian to do what he didn’t want to do, for get profit for themselves. In fact, this kind of example is unfailing, however, they can only prove that the statement is correct in some extend.
On the contrary, there are also many instance can serve to illustrate the unreasonable aspects of the statement. Sometimes experienced researchers often play the role of the obstacle of new, future technology to thrive. For instances, the computer, the internet, the cellphone and so on. Part of their reason to refuse the new-born thing is that they tend to ahere to what they belief already, they don’t want to make any change because that will prove that the effort they have take will be meaningless, comparing to the new, better technology.
While there are countless example can disprove the statement, we should consider what is the basic logic problem with this statement. It is the ignorance of the possibility of all situation and emotional preference that lead to the untenable and unreasonable aspects of the statement. And, the most important fawl in the statement is that it did not tell me what is the standard to decide whether one’s belief should be adhere or compromise.
In my part, if one’s belief is originally good to the others and the nature, there is no reason for him or her to compromise it to other belief, given that there is no other kind of belief will be more subtle and noble than his or hers.
自己顶一下，求助求助啊 再顶一下 都考完了，唉，这个互助环节做的不好啊
页:
[1]