寄托家园留学论坛

标题: Issue178 今日说“法”+ 正反方面精彩意见超火爆！ [打印本页]

作者: Dendis 时间: 2004-7-23 16:17:35 标题: Issue178 今日说“法”

Issue 178
------题目------
It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.
------正文------
Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being, laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated. Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on which people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.

Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it cannot. In the long history of its development, laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers, and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers.

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws. However, so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence. People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

作者: needle 时间: 2004-7-23 16:24:04

always taking seat~~~~lalala:)

居然忘了“阅”了，ft

作者: lakeqian 时间: 2004-7-23 18:05:46

Dendis 文章好
Needle改的好（盼望中）
俺小辈只有占座旁听的份
hoho~~

作者: zhangbaoke 时间: 2004-7-23 20:27:46

哈，拿个凳子，占坐，改加欣赏！！

作者: Dendis 时间: 2004-7-23 20:31:37

最初由 lakeqian 发布
[B]Dendis 文章好
Needle改的好（盼望中）
俺小辈只有占座旁听的份
hoho~~ [/B]

我也是新人，大家互相学习啊！
尤其谢谢needle，改得真的是很认真啊，水平又高，能够得到她的点拨，也是三生有幸啊！
把提纲一起贴出，大家共同探讨。

B1：法律可以限制人们的行为，维护社会的稳定，但这是由于人们对于强力权威的敬畏和对于惩罚的害怕所致。
B2：从历史发展进程我们发现，法律并不能够改变人们的本性和心灵，它只是一定社会、时代、文明下的产物。
B3：从三我说着手分析法律对于人类本性影响的本质，即其只能制约社会规则下的自我，却无法改变本能欲望下的本我。所以自然也无法改变本能欲望下的人类本性和心灵。

作者: zhangbaoke 时间: 2004-7-23 22:10:33

Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being, laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.（Ever since＋ but aside from的开头很精炼）（开头让人羡慕得～～～～p）

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions（个人感觉choice和decision不是behavior范围，是这之前心理状态，我看不如土一点behavior under the law，） every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated(from being violated可去掉). Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely sometimes so harshly（sometimes so harshly作插入语或去掉并在severely前加so，不太肯定） even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on（on是否多余） which people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.（第一body段总law和人关系，可是，对题目的limits behavior并不能legislate moral————heart，mind没作出强调，不知合不合老美胃口，～～）

Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it cannot. In the long history of its development, laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature （加个逗号清楚些）but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers, and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy（强悍，这个都知道，为什么不polygamy细，嘻～～）, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing（这个用法太经典一点，sigh） bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers.（这一段论述的很经典，by the way，你为什么不爱用逻辑词汇？？）

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle,（from ～～～angle） that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud（谢谢，是不是弗洛伊德？？） has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws. However, （这个句的语法成分我还没搞清，能这样倒装吗？）so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence. People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through(through可不要吧，要不然是什么brought？？) the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

（开头结尾都很爽，扣题也相当准，论述，个人觉得body1 稍有问题，其他无可挑剔～～，
Anyway，我目前看到的最爽的文章，不用什么logic词汇就写得这么流畅，研究一下）

也想问一下，为什么你能写得不模板化，积累？？？

作者: zhangbaoke 时间: 2004-7-23 22:30:43

还想请高手指点一下，
我得开头结尾我个人觉得很不爽

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208697

作者: imong 时间: 2004-7-23 23:01:02

好像新时代的galaxysong又要诞生了

我今天元气大耗几天之内都估计看不成作文
要是评精华什么的直接pm我就行了~~~~~~

作者: Dendis 时间: 2004-7-24 09:18:43

谢谢zhangbaoke的认真修改，B1实际上是想对题目threshold的回应，即法律能够制约人们的行为，同时提出造成这一现象的原因。我是希望从法律运作机理来看待法律和人之间的关系，也借此透视出法律根本无法涉及人物的内心世界。不知道这样的论据是否可以？大家讨论一下，多多批评。

最初由 imong 发布
[B]好像新时代的galaxysong又要诞生了

我今天元气大耗几天之内都估计看不成作文
要是评精华什么的直接pm我就行了~~~~~~ [/B]

imong过奖了，作为新人我只是希望在前辈的不断指导下和同辈的帮助下共同进步，水平离各位牛人还差很远，bow一个！

Ps：imong身体保重啊，你可是我们大家的opinion leader啊！

作者: needle 时间: 2004-7-24 11:01:34

Issue 178
------题目------
It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.

B1：法律可以限制人们的行为，维护社会的稳定，但这是由于人们对于强力权威的敬畏和对于惩罚的害怕所致。
B2：从历史发展进程我们发现，法律并不能够改变人们的本性和心灵，它只是一定社会、时代、文明下的产物。[怎么感觉body2应当放在body1的位置上]
B3：从三我说着手分析法律对于人类本性影响的本质，即其只能制约社会规则下的自我，却无法改变本能欲望下的本我。所以自然也无法改变本能欲望下的人类本性和心灵。[果然，body1和body3之间将衔接的比较好][本我、自我的概念要在issue这么短的篇幅内说清楚有点困难，好奇ing]

[首先要说明的是我没有写过法律类的文章，我对法律也一窍不通。如果下面看你的文章的时候提出荒谬的问题或者意见，不要见笑。]

------正文------
Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being[开头起得很好，555，我不会拼写汉莫拉比，羡慕ing], laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.[1+1式的题目，采取的立场是完全同意原题，前后两个论断都同意。个人认为，这个绝对立场里面有弱点，继续看ing]

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise [分号+otherwise，很舒服的行文] there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated. Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely [这里似乎应当有个逗号] sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors[TS句？]. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on which [???] people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.[感觉你这一段的论证还是很自然的，但是中心句出现的太晚。表示观点的句子提前一点比较好，可以和总结句首尾呼应。中心句是顺承着出现的，awe/fear顺承上句中的punish，但如果调换论证顺序，用punish来呼应awe/fear也是很好的。而且，开章明义，对于议论文还是非常重要的。]

[和上段缺衔接] Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it [they] cannot[嗯，观点很鲜明]. In the long history of its [their，注意是laws] development, laws change over time and vary from region to region [加个逗号] not to alter[change/vary/alter，不重复用词，很好] human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers, and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing bigamy seems an impinge[这是个动词] upon their religious freedom of choosing mates[这句的意思怎么感觉跟上一句是相反的？]. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers[简短的例子，简短的分析，但很到位。我个人认为这个例子也同时可以说明region的问题，可以在分析中加上，会加强你的论点].[你分析了laws适应性的很多方面，但只举出了一个例子，显得有点单薄。这是一个横向的例子，建议再举一个纵向的，时间上的。] [这一段虽然开头句总结了上一个body，但正如在提纲中指出的，这是一个总括性的段落，插在body1\3之间有些不太合适。另外的问题是，这一段和原题中的behavior/hearts & minds似乎没有关系。作为论证过程，我提出了以上增加例子的建议，但从文章整体考虑，这一个body作为外围段，应当简写。并且，要加强和behavio/hearts & minds的联系]

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted[之前没有被doubted，现在哪里来的further]. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature[印象里nature是不加定冠词的] and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle,"[标点的位置都用得很正确，看来真的是很下功夫很注意细节啊！赞一个] otherwise known as laws[laws是reality principle的概念外延吗？]. However, so powerless are laws to extend its[their] impacts on the id[what is it? U haven’t explained yet so u cannot use it here] and the superego [the same question as before here] remains below[and这里引导的是并列句？还是remains是remaining之误？另外，remains below在这里应当如何理解？], each [of which] has its own significant effects on the personality[在提纲中我担心的问题出现了。限于篇幅，对于本我、自我的解释都不清晰。]. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives[这个例子太牵强了。论点中的弱点在这里清晰的表露了，May本身就只是一种可能，rapist是否一定会再犯？甚至就算他不再犯，你如何证明他是因为惧怕法律威严而不是真心从善呢？你无法证明。]. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be [前面有were了] able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds[这半句有点罗嗦，其实就是重复by no means的那句话], then [去掉then，were本身就是if were的省略，有连词if了] it would probably be no need for its existence[嗯？这似乎是一个论点的样子]. People at no time can ever have imagined this[晕，没证明。为什么不能alone?从by no means开始就重复的下论断，没给出一点论证。不好。]. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature[还是一个论断，补充了上面的一个。不过仍然没有证明。这些能够影响minds & hearts的因素，应当给与一定地位说明之，从而证明laws单独真的不行。][更重要的问题在这里，你是完全同意原题的立场，你从一开始的legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts，就完全否定了laws的作用，这里忽然说出alone、associating，这不是自相矛盾吗？绝对立场的问题一览无余了！].

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding [你文中论证的，也似乎不是完全重建] man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

[这道题目选择绝对立场我是反对的。Laws对于人类思想的影响其实在现实中很显而易见，一项推广多年的法律，将使人们对一些善恶标准习以为常，并代代延续。而绝对反对，是很难做到论证而没有漏洞的。

注意题目中用的reform/change两个词，这是绝对有程度差异的。其实也是一个提示，可以选择立场反对reform，但让步承认change。

文章的结构如我在提纲和文中所言，建议作适当的调整。Body1和body3将是非常好的连接，分述behavior/minds两个方面laws的影响。Body2作为外围部分，解释laws的背景知识，应当放在首段。在描写过程中，应当加强和题目的联系。

文章的语言仍旧是学习的对象。

另外，下次贴作文的时候，提纲一起贴比较好的说:)]

作者: apolloxp 时间: 2004-7-24 11:27:52

最初由 imong 发布
[B]好像新时代的galaxysong又要诞生了
[/B]

同感同感
不水了。研究一下文章先

作者: imong 时间: 2004-7-24 21:30:46 标题: 这篇文章被讨论到了，过来看看

Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes（came） into being, laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated.（前后对应不一致） Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely （逗号）sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling（去掉controlling） authority as well as the fear of castigation that made(（动词表达不到位） most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on which people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.

Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it cannot. In the long history of its development, laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers,（customes -_-| 太不应该） and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers.（还是顾客？）

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws. However, so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence.（少有的漂亮论证） People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

（你的立论其实在于law cannot reforms thoughts, it is thoughts that reform laws, 在b2可以再加强和突出一下呢...好文章。尤其是b3.）

作者: needle 时间: 2004-7-24 21:57:14

哦？没想到和imong观点相差这么大:confused:

再探讨

精华了？呵呵，也好，多点人看，多点人讨论。

作者: needle 时间: 2004-7-24 22:01:56

另外，刚才吃饭的时候又想到的一点：dendis的body1中论证的人们对于laws的畏惧感，难道不是laws对minds/hearts的影响之一吗？畏惧感难道不属于minds/hearts吗？

我还是很想强调reform/change的区别，建议慎重对待题目中的每一个用词，慎重选择支持or反对的立场以及对象。

这篇贴子，我个人意见，论证的不好。

作者: imong 时间: 2004-7-24 22:08:32

影响= reform？
影响=change？

作者: needle 时间: 2004-7-24 22:11:16

影响当然不等于reform，但是影响不等于change等于什么？

比如说，谁谁在我考GT的时候影响了我，难道是对我一点改变都没有就能算是影响吗？

作者: Dendis 时间: 2004-7-25 09:11:39

needle的意见很中肯，认真研究中……
这两天大家帮我改了不少文章，再次谢谢大家的指导，考完后我也会回来加入你们的队伍！

作者: lovebrian 时间: 2004-7-25 10:11:45

最初由 Dendis 发布
[B]needle的意见很中肯，认真研究中……
这两天大家帮我改了不少文章，再次谢谢大家的指导，考完后我也会回来加入你们的队伍！ [/B]

欢迎呢！ :)

作者: needle 时间: 2004-7-25 10:31:16

sorry, Dendis。来不及等你的悄悄话回复了（你下线了），未经你允许就把你的悄悄话和我的回复讨论贴在这里了。

[B][I]
Dendis 在 2004-07-25 09:52 AM 谈到:[/I]
首先谢谢needle一直一来的认真修改，在此深深bow一个！
关于那篇法律的文章，有几个问题还想向你请教一下，也帮助我更加清晰地解读原题
你的破题好像是把reform nature和change mind放在两个层面来讲。如果这样的话，我同意应该采取你所说的论证步骤。改变人物的行为方式和改变人们的思想，改变人们的本性在一定程度上都是不同的。所以我们的立论点好像有所不同。我把题目看成是这样两个部分：threshold，立法可以限制人们的行为。conclusion，法律无法改变人类本性。后面的改变人类感情和思想我认为是对改变人类本性的一个补充。我以为关键在于强调but后的本性变化。所以论证时我想说明法律并非是最高级的制度，而只是一个低级的产物，它可能需要根据特定的时间，地域，文化特色而产生相应的变化，再者，就人类本性而言，法律无法触及人类深层本质的本我，它不可能改变到我们的原始欲望。人的原罪无法真正救赎。[/B]

Dendis不要太客气了。你的文章很好，我多看多读多思考，自己也获益匪浅。Dendis是学文科的吗？

这道题目你只是单一的否认了reform，对change视而不见，我认为是不合适的。题目实际上主要研究的是laws对于minds/hearts的作用，behavior部分，应当不是重点。从题目的第一句话来看，你所认为的threshold/conclusion的关系是没有问题的。但是第二句话呢？用词的转换，由程度强的reform到程度弱的change，这并不是等价的替换。

你的论点我看文章的时候都了解到了。我并非反对你的立场，而是反对你的绝对。正如我指出的，你的绝对立场有漏洞。laws对于minds/hearts完全没有change吗？这是不符合现实规律的论断。多少现在认为理所当然的善恶判断标准，都是立法的影响，不是么？

另外想说的是，Dendis，一篇issue的篇幅只有600字左右，这不是能够纵横驰骋的疆域。你引入一些深刻的概念，是没有空间解释明白的，但由于概念本身并非公理，是不能够拿来直接使用的。你不能假定每个人都已经了解这个概念。就拿你经常用的Freud来说，本身就还是有争议的心理学观，不是么？再说详细一点，你用Freud的本我/自我概念来说明laws的作用，可是什么是本我，什么是自我你都没有告诉大家，你怎么能让分不清楚“本我/自我”的读者确信laws改变的就是自我，不是本我呢？

[B][I]
Dendis 在 2004-07-25 09:52 AM 谈到:[/I]

法律面对阿拉伯人的文化传统，根本无从下手。而且像堕胎、死刑之类的道德问题，有的地方合法，有的地方非法，这些涉及道德文化的问题都无法通过单一的法律来改变人类的认知。而且像我所说的强奸或是暴力，其实可能都只是自我的一时冲动，但是人可能知道这样做会受惩罚，但就是无法控制，这就是他的本能，法律无论如何也不可能彻底改变。

以上是个人的拙见，想和你共同就此话题进行商榷，如果言辞不当，敬请包涵。[/B]

你举的阿拉伯人的例子，我认为没什么问题。我就是对你那句话有点不太明白。为什么是非法的（outlawing）重婚和他们的宗教理念有冲突呢？他们的宗教理念不正是包容重婚的么？为什么用outlawing？我没太看明白。

rape的确是本能，可是是不是所有的人的本能都在释放？没有释放的人你能区分他是因为惧怕法律的威严所以压抑，还是被法律教化改变了本能？minds/hearts层面上的“不行恶”的原因，你是区分不开的。不是么？既然你不能排除后者这个possibility，你如何能下定论说完全没有laws的作用呢？

再另外，还是reform/change的问题。laws 也许不能reform，但是change这是从现实世界都有目共睹的。阿拉伯民族从诞生就认为一个man可以娶4个woman吗？一件事情当合法化后，就会成为一个民族潜移默化的习惯。再比如说，同性恋在各个社会都是被主流排斥的，但是在立法通过同性恋结婚的地方，人们对待同性恋的态度越来越宽容，这不是change minds/hearts吗？

而你所说的fear，人们从肆无忌弹到畏惧法律的惩戒，这也同样是精神层面的转变，也显然是change的天然例证。不是吗？

我依然反对你的绝对立场。reform可以反对，change应当承认。

作者: wuhcl 时间: 2004-7-25 10:57:03

好文章，Freud的例子都能举得那么娴熟，羡慕ing。象我虽然知道也绝对不敢用，根本不知道怎么用E文说。
这个题目我列的提纲也是先让步再说明的方式，不过觉得你的那么有力的B3是不是可以往前提一点？
另外感觉是不是可以加一点法律对道德约束的无力作为论据？毕竟法律不能用来干涉道德已经是大多数人接受的观点了。

作者: Dendis 时间: 2004-7-25 14:20:46

最初由 needle 发布
[B]sorry, Dendis。来不及等你的悄悄话回复了（你下线了），未经你允许就把你的悄悄话和我的回复讨论贴在这里了。[/B]

没关系的，本来就是一些不太成熟的想法，我想一直up帖子的话人家看了可能会烦，而且也可能沉了不少好贴。当然，为了更深刻地理解这个题目我也再次贴出自己的看法，大家共同商榷。写得比较乱，言辞不当之处，也请谅解！

最初由 needle 发布
[B]另外想说的是，Dendis，一篇issue的篇幅只有600字左右，这不是能够纵横驰骋的疆域。你引入一些深刻的概念，是没有空间解释明白的，但由于概念本身并非公理，是不能够拿来直接使用的。你不能假定每个人都已经了解这个概念。就拿你经常用的Freud来说，本身就还是有争议的心理学观，不是么？再说详细一点，你用Freud的本我/自我概念来说明laws的作用，可是什么是本我，什么是自我你都没有告诉大家，你怎么能让分不清楚“本我/自我”的读者确信laws改变的就是自我，不是本我呢？[/B]

你说得很有道理，Freud的理论自身是很不完善的，有很多毛病，也引起很多争议。就连他的学生荣格尔，佛洛姆等都背叛了自己的老师，他的第三代拉康更是远离老师而重新提出自己的“镜像”理论。可以想见无论是三我说或是泛性论，再或者是梦的解析，它们都只是我们破解题目的一种方法，可以借来说明问题，阐述问题，而却不能完全论证这就是正确的。所以我在文章中使用到的这些理论只是我想从这一个角度来说明一下对于这个问题的理解，而绝非是全面完整的最终看法。我想写issue最关键在于自圆其说，任何理论的引入只是帮助你分析问题，圆满自己的解释。也许我过多使用这些论据，造成了一定程度的误解，在此表示歉意，并在此提醒大家：这些理论仅仅是一个小小的切入口，而决非真理！！！

最初由 needle 发布
[B]还是reform/change的问题。laws 也许不能reform，但是change这是从现实世界都有目共睹的。。[/B]

我想还是就题目重新加以分析：It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.
“Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.”
我的理解这里的Laws就是一个简单的概念——法律，webster上是这样说的：a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority。所以我在文章中反复提及的法律只是通常意义上的社会规则和条文，不包括法律可能涉及的教化或改造含意。Needle所说的法律的教化或其他功能也许是我所提及的共同作用：it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether……而且我所说的法律不能改变思想，是指单纯依赖这些规则是不能产生作用的，你想：对于一个文盲或无赖来讲这些条文可能使他们改变吗？法律的原始作用只是惩罚和保护，是一种行为上的强迫而非认知上的强迫。

最初由 needle 发布
[B]为什么是非法的（outlawing）重婚和他们的宗教理念有冲突呢？他们的宗教理念不正是包容重婚的么？为什么用outlawing？我没太看明白。[/B]

Outlawing那个例子我想说的是把重婚视为非法是对阿拉伯人宗教习俗、观念的一种侵犯（应该是impingement，needle看得真仔细啊，^_^）。这里Outlawing作的是动名词，而非非法的（outlawing）重婚。
Outlaw：transitive verb
1 a : to deprive of the benefit and protection of law : declare to be an outlaw b : to make illegal *outlawed dueling*
2 : to place under a ban or restriction
3 : to remove from legal jurisdiction or enforcement
而且，你说法律change minds and hearts，那么这里到底是法律适应了人们的认知情感呢，还是法律改变了它们？我承认法律可以帮助改变人们的想法，但正如我在文章中所说，这是通过教育、社会伦理、道德、舆论等共同作用下的结果。与此相反，我认为单单法律可以change这一切的事实可能过于绝对。

最初由 needle 发布
[B]现在认为理所当然的善恶判断标准，都是立法的影响。[/B]

这里我有些不明白。试问：当以前法律不存在的时候，难道就没有善恶观念的存在吗？人们的价值判断难道都是建立在法律的基础上面？在立法通过同性恋结婚的地方，人们对待同性恋的态度越来越宽容，事实果真是这样吗？是不是这些地方所有的民众都因为同性恋合法而承认同性恋呢？显然不是。而且假设是这样，也不一定就是法律的作用啊，可能是人们逐渐的行为默认，是一种环境适应的结果，假如法律能够真正改变人们的心灵，那么为什么现在社会还存在合法理而不合情理的事情？为什么法律不能改变人们的道德良知？我想一个关键的问题是：到底法律适应社会还是社会适应法律？我绝不否认法律的作用，但是这是在一个综合的基础上才产生的，法律单体无法做到改变。

最初由 needle 发布
[B]人们从肆无忌弹到畏惧法律的惩戒，这也同样是精神层面的转变。[/B]

至于人们从肆无忌弹到畏惧法律的惩戒，这首先是行为层面的改变，当然，究其深层次本质，最终体现出人们的本能反应——是法律映射出人类的原始恐惧：生本能和死本能。正因为对于生存需求的满足，人们才畏惧于法律的威慑力。而今天我们之所以不犯法，不是简单因为法律说这个不合法就使我们不犯法，而是我们害怕受到惩罚，我们敬畏强权，这一切都是人类的本性和本能，也同样是法律所无法根本改变的。而且，法律认为不合法的事物难道就决定了我们对此事物的认知也是不合法的？所以我以为从这个层面来讲，法律单一个体其实不能改变人类的思想认知。人类认知的改变是通过一系列综合作用的结果。

胡说八道一番，无知者无罪，大家表打我啊，^_^

作者: zhangbaoke 时间: 2004-7-25 18:19:58

肆无忌弹到畏惧法律的惩戒，这首先是行为层面的改变，当然，究其深层次本质，最终体现出人们的本能反应

关于为什么法律能legislate行为还是把原因讲得很深刻，可是，总觉得像你那样展开下去会形成结论
————————legilate人们的行为是表象，真正的，还是可以legislate人们的mind，从而间接改变人的nature，
自己观点，
欢迎批驳

作者: so猫 时间: 2004-7-25 20:09:17

新时代的galaxysong啊
看来是强悍的写手咧
偶旁听
来学习一下~~~

作者: isthmus 时间: 2004-7-25 20:53:23

占个位先！

作者: lakeqian 时间: 2004-7-25 23:03:00

辩论真是太精彩了！！！！
爽了！！佩服dendis,needle的真知灼见！！！
嗯。。。小弟插个话：涉及到人性啦，法律啦这些问题多少学者研究多少年也没有最后的答案，而且肯定还会被继续探讨下去。且这些问题没有绝对正确的结论。
觉得我们写这个恶心的issue，能按基本正确的观点阐述下意见就差不多啦。不过辩论太精彩了。不废话了，好好学习先。uuuuppppppp！这个帖子不能沉啊！！
PS.dendis好像对西方哲学很了解的说~
考完要回来给xdjm们改作文啊~~

作者: buggod 时间: 2004-7-25 23:58:03

是一个bt的issue
佩服啊,我们理工科的想插嘴都插不上
学习ing

作者: so猫 时间: 2004-7-26 00:21:09

看到后来
发现已经不再是简单的issue讨论
而变成思路观点的讨论了~~~
偶也越来越看不懂了~~~~

作者: Daffi 时间: 2004-7-26 11:24:34

先赞一个，DENDIS好强啊！=^^= 一上来就先来了个 Ever since the Code of Hammurapi came into being, ... 再一句 But aside from ... 开头段好漂亮！

不过我不同意你的观点。

你的提纲是：
B1：法律可以限制人们的行为，维护社会的稳定，但这是由于人们对于强力权威的敬畏和对于惩罚的害怕所致。
B2：从历史发展进程我们发现，法律并不能够改变人们的本性和心灵，它只是一定社会、时代、文明下的产物。
B3：从三我说着手分析法律对于人类本性影响的本质，即其只能制约社会规则下的自我，却无法改变本能欲望下的本我。所以自然也无法改变本能欲望下的人类本性和心灵。

就提纲来看，我觉得，你忽略了法律和道德的互相作用。你第一段说，人们之所以不做违法的行为，是源于对强力权威的敬畏和对惩罚的害怕。这样讲，感觉是把"人们"与"强力权威"、以及"强力权威"下产生的法律对立起来了。但法律是建立在一定的社会道德基础上的；如果脱离了这个道德基础，就算authority再怎么powerful，punishment再怎么严酷，它都没法长久。

而从与道德关系角度划分，法律亦可分为与道德关系密切的（几乎是直接限制人的hearts and minds的），以及与道德没太大关系、随着时代更替而变化极大的两种。前者，如宪法，民法，规定人有生存的权利，平等的权利，有诚信的义务，等等。这些，你能说它不是直接作用于human nature的吗？（尤其是英美法系，他们的法官更能直接以法理判案。还有，"违宪审查"，也是因为有些犯罪并没有现成的法律条文可引用，就直接引用宪法中对人的基本权利的条款。）而后者，如《证券法》、《专利法》，是可操作性很强的，主要是指导people's behavior的法律。这部分法律更倾向于你说的，"一定社会、时代、文明下的产物"。当然了，大部分法律是界于二者之间的。

法律根源于道德，亦影响道德。DENDIS你其实是同意这一点的吧？你说"法律单一个体其实不能改变人类的思想认知。" 但为什么要强调"单一个体"呢？题目又不是说 Laws ALONE cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds. 法律可以作用在人的行为上，作用在教育上，作用在政府的行政行为上，难道间接作用就不算作用吗？

B3你从FREUD心理学的角度分析。对这段，笑~ 我和imong的意见刚好相反呢，我觉得这段论证得特别薄弱。

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws.（reality principle我觉得更应该是指社会道德，其次才轮到法律。）（这句话，算是LAW对EGO的作用。）However, so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality.（但这句，一下子说到LAW对ID和SUPEREGO是powerless的，论证经过呢？这个结论下得太主观了吧！） A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives.（这个例子一点说服力都没有。他"可能"relapse into ... again，也"可能"不relapse。说了等于没说。） By no means can laws alone alter our nature.（呵呵，加了个alone，又偷换概念了。）Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence. People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

另外，NEEDLE说要分清REFORM和CHANGE的区别，我倒觉得，笑~ 这个用词的不同，也只是在避免重复罢了，都是在表达"改变"的意思。但改变what's in people's hearts and minds和改变human nature当然是有区别的。无法改变HUMAN NATURE我同意，但说无法改变人的想法，这也太绝对了。

但不同意归不同意，有些论证也觉得不充分，我仍觉得这篇得高分是肯定的。至少你让ETS看到你对这个题目观点明确、逻辑清晰。

作者: lakeqian 时间: 2004-7-26 14:31:29

NEEDLE说要分清REFORM和CHANGE的区别有道理，题目中任何地方都是oper to doubt 不要觉得一道题只有一个题眼。
法律根源于道德...有点道理，看你选什么样的法律学派啦，这个偶不太懂。
觉得能自圆其说就行了。

作者: wild 时间: 2005-2-23 10:33:06

对于前面两位前辈的批改，我有几点不懂之处，想请教一下：

1. The ego, as the surface of the nature[印象里nature是不加定冠词的] and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle,"[标点的位置都用得很正确，看来真的是很下功夫很注意细节啊！赞一个] otherwise known as laws[laws是reality principle的概念外延吗？].

这里提到的标点用法难道是对的吗？为什么这么用呢？

2. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated.（前后对应不一致）
为什么说这里的前后对应不一致呢？

真是感叹于作者深刻的见解和各个领域广博的知识呀！同时感叹needle和imong一贯以来深刻的见解。看到身边有如此之多这样的人，真是让人兴奋。学习之路漫漫..

作者: arhoo 时间: 2005-3-13 16:26:49

土土的问一句大家在讨论reform和change的区别那有没有注意到human nature 和 what s in people's hearts and minds 的区别呢？

作者: marion 时间: 2005-4-2 22:51:24 标题: 恳请大家多多指正！

"The bombardment of visual images in contemporary society has the effect of making people less able to focus clearly and extensively on a single issue over a long period of time."
Does the bombardment of visual images in contemporary society have the effect of making people less able to focus clearly and extensively on a single issue over a long period of time, as the speaker claimed? Although there are some merits in the statement, on balance, however, I am tending to disagree with the author.
First, the fact that people cannot focus on a single issue is due to the richness of information. Owing to the visual facilities as well as the visual images, the whole world opens to us. Even the most skilled journalists and author cannot account for complete and objective details of a Ballanchine Ballet performance as well as the scene in the intersection of the Florence and Normandy Streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. And the world is more and more eventful, which leaves an onerous task to the book publisher and journalists to write down and disseminate all the events in printed form. Therefore, in any sense, the visual images give us more accurate and timely information of the things happened around us and worth our attention in a way (不可替代的).
Secondly, in the contemporary society, we should never focus on only one thing over a long period of time. There are too many things happened around us which we have to pay attention to and respond to, such as gang violence, AIDS awareness, poor education, unemployment and so forth. What is more, all of these things are intertwined with another, cannot be addressed with single mind. The visual images supply us an effective and efficient way to know about and deal with them all.
Admittedly, the merits of visual images cannot be taken too far. After all, they can show us the scenes and figures but never insight and perceive of the people related to them. However, when we are reading an article, the author adds his point of view to enlighten and guide us actually. And sometimes, they bombardment of visual images on TV and computer steals us attention and time for our families, community and coworkers. Before the popularity of television, the vision that a whole family getting together to read , talk, and play cards always haunts in my mind, but now it all yields to more than ten hours sitting in frond of TV.
In sum, whether we should focus on one issue clearly and extensively over a long period of time or pay attention to the bombardment of visual images around us should never be determined indiscriminately, which needs a case-by-case analysis.
(45mins)

欢迎光临寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/)