Issue156 哲学类（写得有点诡异的样子，请大家批评）
156Choice is an illusion. In reality, our lives are controlled by the society in which we live.
Bertrand Russell once pointed out “Man is neither impotent nor omnipotent, he has powers and his powers are surprisingly great, but they are not infinite and they are not as great as he might wish.” The speaker who asserts that choice is just illusive, and people cannot control their life because the influence of society is everywhere may just commit the mistake Russell said. I agree with the claim that our lives are affected by the society, but never totally controlled by the society. After all, we do make choices by ourselves in our everyday life.
Choices do exist, and we can choose according to our preference. It is somewhat far-fetched if we hear someone says he ate an apple rather than an orange this morning (granted his family has both apples and oranges this morning), and he made the choice not by himself but by the society, say, his mother suggested him eat apples and thereby “mother” was considered as a social influence on him which made him not able to make his own choice. This kind of choice, even people may change their mind when external people and external conditions give them some implications or advice, is decided by them ultimately. In this case, people’s own preference is the dominant factor that affects the final decision.
One may also argue, sometimes we are doomed to do something or not to do something because of the limitation of the society. I fundamentally disagree with the argument. Admittedly, what we can choose is somehow limited, but this is not because of the society’s limitation, it is because we human beings are not omnipotent. However, that we can never fly by ourselves does not implies we can not choose the tools by which we can fly, i.e. we can choose within our capability instead.
While I agree that we could never get rid of the influence of society in our whole life, on the other hand, I should say, without society we can not live. The speaker’s assertion that choice is just an illusion is much like the philosophy of a pessimistic determinist who believes our lives are determined by the world and humans can never be their own masters but be the servants of the society. Living in the world, humans should obey some natural rules which form a comparatively stable society for people to live in. With these rules, we may feel bounded when acting, but those rules are the guarantee of our elementary life. Imagine, people can do whatever they want, is the society still a safe one? When the society regulates limitation, it just bereaves a small part of free; instead it guarantees a world of more freedom.
To sum up, the arguer’s opinion is unbiased and extreme. The society is made up of individuals. As a citizen living in the society, one should not only learn how to use the freedom the society endow with to make right choices by ourselves, but obey the rules prescribed by the society and accept the fact realistically that we are never omnipotent and we can never do at our’s pleasure. Bertrand Russell once pointed out “Man is neither impotent nor omnipotent, he has powers and his powers are surprisingly great, but they are not infinite and they are not as great as he might wish.” The speaker who asserts that choice is just illusive, and people cannot control their life because the influence of society is everywhere may just commit the mistake Russell said. I agree with the claim that our lives are affected by the society, but never totally controlled by the society. After all, we do make choices by ourselves in our everyday life.
第一段作者的观点是，人们作出选择是内因和外因共同作用的结果。而BR的话的主要意思是，人们对自己的能力既不能低估也不能高估。我觉得引用这段话似乎比较牵强，因为是否根据自己的意愿作选择和对自己能力的认识并无必然的联系，前者牵涉到内外因两个方面，而后者完全是内因的问题。
Choices do exist(这句似乎没有必要), and we can choose according to our preference. It is somewhat far-fetched if we hear someone says he ate an apple rather than an orange this morning (granted his family has both apples and oranges this morning), and he made the choice not by himself but by the society, say, his mother suggested him eat apples and thereby “mother” was considered as a social influence on him which made him not able to make his own choice. (我觉得这个例子太简单化了，是不是可以换个深刻点有说服力一点的？)This kind of choice, even people may change their mind when external people and external conditions give them some implications or advice, is decided by them ultimately. (这句话写得不错！)In this case, people’s own preference is the dominant factor that affects the final decision.
感觉这一段的观点还是不错的，后半段的结论也很好，就是例子。。。建议说一个比较说明问题的：）
One may also argue, sometimes we are doomed to do something or not to do something because of the limitation of the society. I fundamentally(太绝对了吧，很容易让别人挑错的) disagree with the argument. Admittedly, what we can choose is somehow limited, but this is not because of the society’s limitation, it is because we human beings are not omnipotent. However(为什么转折？), that we can never fly by ourselves does not implies we can not choose the tools by which we can fly, i.e. we can choose within our capability instead.
这一段我觉得作者的观点太绝对了一些。我觉得the limitation of the society确实是存在的，比如说经济发展水平的限制（消极方面）或者道德法律的限制（积极方面）就可以制约很多很多东西。it is because we human beings are not omnipotent我没太明白作者想表达的什么意思？以致后面的fly的例子也不弄懂作者的意思。
While I agree that we could never get rid of the influence of society in our whole life, on the other hand(为什么要转折？“我们不能逃脱社会的影响”和“我们离开社会不能生存”之间似乎不是转折的关系), I should say, without society we can not live. The speaker’s assertion that choice is just an illusion is much like the philosophy of a pessimistic determinist who believes our lives are determined by the world and humans can never be their own masters but be the servants of the society.(这句写得不错！) Living in the world, humans should obey some natural rules which form a comparatively stable society for people to live in. With these rules, we may feel bounded when acting(这不正是社会的限制嘛！！！), but those rules are the guarantee of our elementary life. Imagine, people can do whatever they want, is the society still a safe one? When the society regulates limitation, it just bereaves a small part of free; instead it guarantees a world of more freedom.
感觉这一段写的不错，论述得也清楚、完整！
To sum up, the arguer’s opinion is unbiased(biased?) and extreme. The society is made up of individuals. As a citizen(以偏概全，改成person吧) living in the society, one should not only learn how to use the freedom the society endow with to make right choices by ourselves, but(bus also) obey the rules prescribed by the society and accept the fact realistically that we are never omnipotent and we can never do at our’s(?) pleasure.
最后一段结尾处we can never do at our pleasure又极端了吧？难道我们一直都是displeasure的吗？明白作者的意思，就是说不能随心所欲任意妄为，但表述上有所偏差。
还有，我觉得最后一段更多的是在强调社会给予人们的自由和约束给人们的影响，我想应该扣题说一下人们的主观能动性对人们的选择的作用也是不可忽视的。
全文除了第三段，我觉得论述和观点都是可以的。结构布局也还可以。例子应该更丰富些。关键是有的观点和措辞应该更谨慎一些，否则有些自相矛盾的感觉。不知我说的作者能否接受？ at our pleasure 不是随心所欲的意思么？
谢谢楼上的建议，你对这个哲学问题怎么看？我感觉这个问题怎么也说不深入的，决定论的说法想要反对似乎不能够一句两句讲清楚的样子。我感觉什么是自由意志这个感念就比较模糊厄。 我觉得这道题关键有两个词：illusion + control
无论立场是什么，都可以从这两方面入手
感觉上你更倾向于强调control的局限性，从而提出人的“自由意志”（这是你提出的概念）才是关键。那么好了，文章的重点就应该放在自由意志的实现上：这种意志的表现是什么？（在文中你有提到）为什么人们可以被赋予这种意志？（我想这可能决定了文章是否深刻）
当然不能抛开illusion，但是作为让步，它不应该成为行文重点。打个比方，你想说苹果是水果，却把重点放在讲它不是肉禽，不是大米上，可能显得很全面，但是最终的落脚点却偏离了本来的意思。再回到这道题目上来，用一个body讲choice do exist， 后面全是让步内容，给人感觉最后得出的结论很无奈，好像是让步的内容太多以至于几乎动摇了主要观点。
不知这个看法你是否同意
页:
[1]