issue 例文20篇

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 10
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
政府必须保证主要城市用于发展的财政支持，因为国家的文化传统发源于并保留在这些主要城市。

   The speaker’s claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survivial of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed for our large cities and culrural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3)cultural traditons are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of government. admittedly, certain objectives, such as prublic health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisiona as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their hometowns and states or of lobbuyists with the most money and unfluence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture—by which I chiefly mean the fine arts—has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the twentieth century, the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and Getty. And tomorrow, cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls—including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so governmetn need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primary breeding gound and sactuaries for a nation’s cultural traditions. Today, a nation’s distinct cultural traditions—its folk art, crafts, traditonal songs, customs, and ceremonies—burgeon instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for “high art”; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world’s preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do anymore with one nation’s distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicutural stew pots; accordingly, by assisting large cities, a government is actually helping to create a global culture as well to subsidize the tradions of other nations’ cultures.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation’s cultural traditions; nor is governmetn assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 17
"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，应该不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律。

According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also to disobey unjust ones. In my view, this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.
First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one’s personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws alloeing women an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such law as just.
The fairness of a law also depends on one’s personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society, the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among conpeting interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation mightt be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company’s owners, employees, and customers as well as the opposing interests of the region’s residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one’s personal interests are affected by it.
The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite effect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance, that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its busget.
Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law, we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.
In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one’s subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safegy of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 49
"Imaginative works such as novels, plays, films, fairy tales, and legends present a more accurate and meaningful picture of human experience than do factual accounts. Because the creators of fiction shape and focus reality rather than report on it literally, their creations have a more lasting significance."
有想象力的作品，比如小说、戏剧、童话和传说向人们展示了过去人们经验的精确且有意义的画面，而现实作品则稍逊。因为小说的作者重点刻画事实，而非文学本身， 他们的作品有更深远的意义。
   
Do imaginative works hold more lasting significance than factual accounts, for the reasons the speaker cites? To some extent, the speaker overstates fiction’s comparative significance. On balance, however, I tend to agree with the speaker. By recounting various dimensions of the human experience, a fictional work can add meaning to and appreciation of the times in which the work is set. Even where a fictional work amounts to pure fantasy, with no historical context, it can still hold more lasting significance than a factual account. Examples from literature and film serve to illustrate these points.
I concede that most fictional works rely on historical settings for plot, thematic, and character development. By informing us about underlying political, economic, and social conditins, factual accounts provide a frame of reference needed to understand and appreciate imaginative works. Fact is the basis for fiction, and fiction is no substitute for fact. I would also concede that factual accounts are more “accurate” than fictional ones—insofar as they are more objective. But this does not mean that facutal accounts provide a “more meaningful picture of the human experience.” To the contrary, only imaginative works can bring a historical period alive—by way of creative tools such as imagery and point of view. And, only imaginative works can provide meaning to historical events—throuhg the use of devices such as symbolism and metaphor.
Several examples from literature serve to illustrate this point. Twain’s novels afford us a sense of how nineteenth-century missouri would have appeared through the eyes of 10-year-old boys. Melville’s Billy Budd gives the reader certain insights into what travel on the high seas might have been like in earlier centuries, through the eyes of a crewman. And the epic poems Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight provide glimpses of the relationships between warriors and their kings in medieval times. Bare facts about this historical eras are easily forgettable, whereas creative stories and portrayals such as the ones mentioned above can be quite memorable indeed. In other words, what truly lasts are our impressions of what life must have been like in certain places, at certain times, and under certain conditins. Only imaginative works can provide such lasting impressions.
Examples of important films underscore the point that creative accounts of the human experience hold more lasting significance than bare factual accounts. Consider four of our most memorable and influential films: Citizen Kane, Schindler’s List, The Wizard of Oz, and Star Wars. Did Welles’ fictional portrayal of publisher William Randolph Hearst or Spielberg’s fictional portrayal of a Jewish sympathizer during the holocaust provide a more “meaningful picture of human experience” than a history textbook? Did these accounts help give “shape and focus” to reality more so than newsreels alone could? If so, will these works hold more “lasting significance” than bare factual accounts of the same persona and events? I think anyone who has seen these films would answer all three questions affirmatively. Or consider The Wizard of Oz and Star Wars. Both films, and the novels from which they were adapted, are pure fantasy. Yet both teem with symbolism and metaphor relating to life’s journey, the human spirit, and our hopes, dreams, and ambitions—in short, the human experience. Therein lies the reason for their lasting significance.
In sum, without prior factual accounts, fictional works set in historical periods lose much of their meaning. Yet only through the exercise of artistic license can we convey human experience in all its dimensions and thereby fully understand and appreciate life in other times and places. And it is human experience, and not bare facts and figures, that endures in our minds and souls.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 94
"Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study because acquiring knowledge of various academic disciplines is the best way to become truly educated."
大学应该要求学生学习本专业以外的课程，因为让学生们了解不同学科的知识才是教育的真谛所在。

I fundamentally agree with the proposition that students must take courses outside their major field of study to become “truly educated”. A contrary position would reflect a too-narrow view of higher education and its proper objectives. Nevertheless, I would caution that extending the proposition too far might risk undermining those objectives.
The primary reason why I agree with the proposition is that “true” education amounts to far more than gaining the knowledge and ability to excel in one’s major course of study and in one’s professinal career. True education also facilitates an understanding of oneself and tolerance and respect for the viewpoints of others. Course in psychology, sociology, and anthropology all serve these ends. “True” education also provides insight and perspective regarding one’s place in society and in the physical and metaphysical worlds. Courses in political science, philosophy, theology, and even sciences such as astronomy and physics can help a student gain this insight and perspective. Finally, no student can be truly educated without having gained an aesthetic appreciation of the world around us—through course work in literature, the fime arts, and the performing arts.
Becoming truly educated also requires sufficient mastery of one academic area to permit a student to contribute meaningfully to society later in life. Yet, mastery of any specific area requires some knowledge about a variety of others. For example, a political-science student can fully understand that field only by understanding the various psychological, sociological, and historical forces that shape political ideology. An anthropologist cannot excel without understanding the social and political events that shape cultures and without some knowledge of chemistry and geology for performing field work. Even computer engineering is intrinsically tied to other fields, even non-technical ones such as business, communications, and media.
Nevertheless, the call for a broad educatinal experience as the path to becoming truly educated comes with one important caveat. A student who merely dabbles in a hodgepodge of academic offerings, without special emphasis on any one, becomes a dilettante—lacking enough knowledge or experience in any single area to come away with anything valuable to offer. Thus, in the pursuit of true education students must be careful not to over-extend themselves—or risk defeating an important objective of education.
In the final analysis, to become truly educated, one must strike a proper balance in one’s educatinal pursuits. Certainly, students should strive to excel in the specific requirements of their major course of study. However, they should complement those efforts by pursuing course work in a variety of other areas as well. By earnestly pursuing a broad education, one gains the capacity not only to succeed in a career, but also to find purpose and meaning in that career as well as to understand and appreciate the world and its peoples. To gain these capacities is to become “truly educated.”

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 103
"The study of history has value only to the extent that it is relevant to our daily lives."
只有当历史和我们的生活相关时，对它的研究才有扩展性和价值。

The speaker alleges that studying history is valuable only insofar as it is relevant to our daily lives. I find this allegation to be specious. It wrongly suggests that history is not otherwise instructive and that its relevance to our everyday lives is limited. To the contrary, studying history provides inspiration, innumerable lessons for living, and useful value-clarification and perspective—all of which help us decide how to live our lives.
To begin with, learning about great human achievements of the past provides inspiration. For example, a student inspired by the courage and tenacity of history’s great explorers might decide as a result to pursue a career in archeology, oceanography, or astronomy. This decision can, in turn, profoundly affect that student’s everyday life—in school and beyond. Even for students not inclined to pursue these sorts of careers, studying historical examples of courage in the face of adversity can provide motivation to face their own personal fears in life. In short, learning about grand accomplishments of the past can help us get through the everyday business of living, whatever that business might be, by emboldening us and lifting our spirits.
In addition, mistakes of the past can teach us a society how to avoid repeating those mistakes. For example, history can teach us the inappropriateness of addressing certain social issues, particularly moral ones, on a societal level. Attempts to legislate morality invariably fail, as aptly illustrated by the Prohibition experiment in the U.S. during the 1930s. Hopefully, as a society, we can apply this lesson by adopting a more enlightened legislative approach toward such issues as free speech, criminalization of drug use, criminal justice, and equal rights under the law.
Study human history can also help us understand and appreciate the mores, values, and ideals of past cultures. A heightened awareness of cultural evolution, in turn, helps us formulate informed and reflective values and ideals for ourselves. Based on these values and ideals, students can determine their authentic life path as well as how they should allot their time and interact with others on a day-to-day basis.
Finally, it might be tempting to imply from the speaker’s allegation that studying history has little relevance even for the mundane chores that occupy so much of our time each day and therefore is of little value. However, from history, we learn not to take everyday activities and things for granted. By understanding the history of money and banking, we can transform an otherwise routine trip to the bank into an enlightened experience or a visit to the grocery store into an homage to the many inventors, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs of the past who have made such convenience  possible tiday. And, we can fully appreciate our freedom to go about our daily lives largely as we choose only by understanding our political heritage. In short, appreciating history can serve to elevate our everyday chores to richer, more interesting, and more enjoyable experiences.
In sum, the speaker fails to recognize that in all our activities and decisions—fromour grandest to our most rote—history can inspire, inform, guide, and nurture. In the final analysis, to study history is to study history is to gain the capacity to be more human—and I would be hard-pressed to imagine a worthier end.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 114
114 "Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of human ity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."
114． 人性在上个世纪并没有给社会的发展带来多大帮助。技术取得了革命性的发展， 但是整个世界的人性并没有得到改善。战争、暴力、贫穷一直困扰着我们。技术的发展 并不能带动人性的发展。

Have technological innovatins of the last century failed to bring about true progress for humanity, as the statement contends? Although I agree that technology cannot ultimately prevent us from harming one another, the statement fails to account for the significant positive impact that the modern-industrial and computer revolutions have had on the quality of life—at least in the developed world.
I agree with the statement insofar as there is no technological solutin to the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects of human nature—such as aggression and greed. Although future advances in biochemistry might enable us to “engineer away” those undesirable aspects, in the meantime, it is up to our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists—not our scientists and engineers—to mitigate these problems.
Admittedly, many technological developments during the last century have helped resuce human suffering. Consider, for instance, technology that enables computers to map Earth’s geographical features from outer space. This technology allows us to locate lands that can be cultivated for feeding malnourished people in third-world countries. And few would disagree that humanity is the beneficiary of the myriad of twentieth-century innovations in medicine and medical technology—from prostheses and organ transplants to vaccines and lasers.
Yet for every technological innovation helping to reduce human suffering is another that has served primarily to add to it. For example, while some might argue that nuclear weapons serve as invaluable “peace-keepers,” this argument flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts. More recently, the increasing use of chemical weapons for human slaughter points out that so-called “advances” in biochemistry can amount to net losses for humanity.
Notwithstanding technology’s limitations in preventing war, poverty, and violence, twentieth-century technological innovation has enhanced the overall standard of living and comfort level of developed nations. The advent of steel production and assembly-line manufacturing created countless jobs, stimulated economic growth, and supplied a plethora of innovative conveniences. More recently, computers have helped free up our time by perfoeming repetitive tasks; have aided in the design of safer and more attractive bridges, buildings, and vehicles; and have made universal access to information possible.
Of course, such progress has not come without costs. One harmful byproduct of industrial progress os environmental pollution and its threat to public health. Another is the alienation of assembly-line workers from their work. And the Internet breeds information overload and steals our time and attention away from family, community, and coworkers. Nevertheless, on balance, both the modern-industrial and computer revolutions have improved our standard of living and comfort level; and both constitute progress by any measure.
In sum, enduring problems such as war, poverty, and violence ultimately spring from human nature, which no technological innovatin short of genetic engineering can alter. Thus, the statement is correct in this respect. However, if we define “progressa” more narrowly—in terms of economic standard of living and comfort level—recent technological innovatins have indeed brought about clear progress for humanity.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 138
"Only through mistakes can there be discovery or progress."（7）
不犯错误就不会有发现和进步。
The speaker contends that discovery and progress are made only through mistakes. I strongly agree with this contention, for two reasons. First, it accords with our personal experiences. Secondly, history informs us that on a societal level, trial-and-error provides the very foundation for discovery and true progress, in all realms of human endeavor.
To begin with, the contention accords with our everyday experience as humans from early childhood through adulthood. As infants, we learn how to walk by falling down again and again. As adolescents, we discover our social niche and develop self-confidence and assertiveness, only by way of the sorts of awkward social encounters that are part and parcel of adolescence. Through failed relationships, not only do we discover who we are and are not compatible with, but we also discover ourselves in the process. And, most of us find the career path that suits us only through trying jobs that don’t.
This same principle also applies on a societal level. Consider, for example, how we progress in our scientific knowledge. Our scientific method is essentially a call for progress through trial and error. Any new theory must be tested by empirical observation and must withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the history of theoretical science is essentially a history of trial and error. One modern example involves two contrary theories of physics: wave theory and quantum theory. During the last quarter-century, scientists have been struggling to disprove one or the other—or to reconcile them. As it turns out, a new so-called “string” theory shows that the quantum and wave theories are mistakes in the sense that each one is inadequate to explain the behavior of all matter; yet both so-called “mistakes” were necessary for physics to advance, or progress, to this newer theory.
The value of trial and error is not limited to the sciences. In government and politics, progress usually comes about through dissension and challenge—that is, when people point out the mistakes of those in power. In fact, without our challenging the mistaken notions of established institutions, political oppression and tyranny would go unchecked. Similarly, in the fields of civil and criminal law, jurists and legislators who uphold and defend legal precedent must face continual oppositon form those who question the fairness and relevance of current laws. This ongoing challenge is critical to the vitality and relevance of our system of laws.
In sum, the speaker correctly asserts that it is through mistakes that discovery and true progress are made. Indeed, our personal growth as individuals, as well as advances in science, government, and law, depends on making mistakes.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 147
"Tradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them."（5）
传统和现代是不相容的。人们必须在二者之间做出选择。
    Must we choose between tradition and modernization, as the speaker contends? I agree that in certain cases, the two are mutually exclusive. For the most part, however, modernization does not reject tradition; in fact, in many cases, the former can and does embrace the latter.
In the first place, oftentimes, so-called “modernization” is actually an extension or new iteration of tradition or a variation on it. This is especially true in language and in law. The modern English language, in spite of its many words that are unique to medern Western culture, is derived from, and builds upon, a variety of linguistic tradition—and ultimately from the ancient Greek and Latin languages. Were we to insist on rejecting traditional in favor of purely modern language, we would have essentially nothing to say, perhaps an even more striking marriage of modernization and tradition is our system of laws in the U.S., which is deeply rooted in Englidh common-law priciples of equity and justice. Our system requires that new, so-called “modern” laws be consistent with, and in fact build upon,ythose principles.
In other areas, modernization departs from tradition in some respects while embracing it in others. In the visual arts, for example, “modern” designs, forms, and elements are based on certain timeless aesthetic ideals—such as symmetry, balance, and harmony. Medern art that violates these principles might hold ephemeral appeal due to its novelty and brashness, but its appeal lacks staying power. An even better example from the arts is modern rock-and-roll music, which upon first listening might seem to bear no resemblance to classical music traditions. Yet both genres rely on to the ear, the same forms, the same rhythmic meters, and even many of the same melodies.
I concede that, in certain instances, tradition must yield entirely to the utilitarian needs of modern life. This is true especially when it comes to architectural traditions and the value of historic and archeological artifacts. A building of great historic value might be located in the only place available to a hospital desperately needing additional parking area. An old school that is a prime example of a certain architectural style might be so structurally unsafe that the only practicable way to remedy the problem would be to raze the building to make way for a modern, stucturally sound one. And when it comes to bridges whose structural integrity is paramount to public safety, modernization often requires no less than replacement of the bridge altogether. However, in other such cases, architecturally appropriate retrofits can solve structural problems without sacrificing history and tradition, and alternative locations for new buildings and bridges can be found in order to preserve the tradition associated with our historic structures. Thus, even in architecture, tradition and modernization are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.
To sum up, in no area of human endeavor need modernization supplant, reject, or otherwise exclude tradition. In fact, in our modern structures, architecture, and other art, and especially languages and law, tradition is embraced, not shunned.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 159
"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."（6）
人总是比机器聪明，因为机器只不过是人类的工具而已。

This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines “superiority” and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.
The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any manchine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuse us—for exmple, toy robots, cars, wideo games, and novelty items—are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans wharsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus, when we develop any sort of machine, we always have some sort of end in mind—a purpose for that machine.
As for the statement’s second claim, in certain respects, machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minda ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them—as out tools—to begin with. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in performing rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machine4s have no capacity independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional respenses to intellectual problems.
Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own and to develop so-called “emotional intelligence” has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fictin, we humans unltimately prevail over such machines—as in the cases of Frankenstein’s monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptous to assert with confidence that hemans will always maintain their superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the twenty-first century, we’ll witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we hamans attribute our own superiority.
In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as “tools of human minds”. And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional respense, it also seems fair to claim superiority over out machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then consider whether these machines of the future would be “machines” anymore.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 165
"In any given field, the leading voices come from people who are motivated not by conviction but by the desire to present opinions and ideas that differ from those held by the majority."
在任何领域，领导作用总是来自于这些人，他们并不为传统的观念所动，而是极力渴望表达那些和主流思想不同的观点和想法。

I agree with the statement insofar as our leading voices tend to come from people whose ideas depart from the status quo. However, I do not agree that what motivates these iconoclasts is a mere desire to be different; in my view, they are driven primarily by their personal convictions. Supporting examples abound in all areas of human endeavor—including politics, the arts, and the physical sciences.
When it comes to political power, I would admit that a deep-seated psychological need to be noticed or to be different sometimes lies at the heart of a person’s drive to political power and fame. For instance, some astute presidential historians have described Clinton as a man motivated more by a desire to be great than to accomplish great things. And many psychologists attribute Napoleon’s and Mussolini’s insatiable lust for power to a so-called “short-man complex”—a need to be noticed and admired in spite of one’s small physical stature.
Nevertheless, for every leading political voice driven to new ideas by a desire to be noticed or to be different, one can cite many other political leaders clearly driven instead by the courage of their convictions. Iconoclasts Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example, secured prominent places in history by challenging the status quo through civil disobedience. Yet no reasonable person could doubt that it was the conviction of their ideas that drove these two leaders to their respective places.
Turning to the arts, mavericks such as Dali, Picasso, and Warhol, who departed from established rules of composition, ultimately emerge as the leading artists. And our most influential popular musicians are the ones who are flagrantly “different.” Consider, for example, jazz pioneers Thelonius Monk and Miles Davis, who broke all the harmonic rules, or folk musician-poet Bob Dylan, who established a new standard for lyricism. Were all these leading voices driven simply by a desire to be different? Perhaps, but my intuition is that creative ueges are born not of ego but rather of some intensely personal commitment to an aesthetic ideal.
As for the physical sciences, innovation and progress can only result from challenging conventional theories—that is, the status quo. Newton and Einstein, for example, both refused to blindly accept what were perceived to be the rules of physics. As a result, both men redefined those rules. Yet it would be patently absurd to assert that these two scientists were driven by a mere desire to conjure up “different” theories than those of their contemporaries or predecessors. Surely it was a conviction that their theories were better that drove these geniuses to their places in history.
To sum up, when one examines history’s leading voices, it does appear that they typically bring to the world something radically different than the status quo. Yet in most cases, this sort of iconoclasm is a byproduct of personal conviction, not iconoclasm for its own sake.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 176
"The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset . Therein lies the value of each."
科学的目的是打消疑虑，艺术的目的是颠覆。只有这样，它们才有价值。

The speaker maintains that the function of art is to “upset” while the function of science is to “reassure” and that it is in these function that the value of each lies. In my view, the speaker unfairly generalizes about the function and value of art while completely missing the point about the function and value of science.
Consider first the intent and effect of art. In many cases, artists set about to reassure, not to upset. Consider Fra Angelico and others monks and nuns of the late medieval period, who sought primarily through their representations of the Madonna and Child to reassure and be reassured about the messages of Christian redemption and salvation. Or consider the paintings of impressionist and realist painters of the late nineteenth century. Despite the sharp contrast in the techniques employed by these two schools, in both genres, we find soothing, genteel, and pastoral themes and images—certainly nothing to upset the viewer.
In other cases, artists set about to upset. For example, the painters and sculptors of the Renaissance period, like the artists who preceded them, approached their art as a form of worship. Yet Renaissance art focuses on other Christian images and themes—especially those involving the crucifixion and apocalyptic notions of judgement and damnation—that are clearly “upsetting” and disconcerting and clearly not reassuring. Or consider the works of two important twentieth-century artists; few would argue that the surrealistic images by Salvador Dali or the jarring, splashy murals by abstract painter Jackson Pollock serve to “upset,” or at the very least disquiet, the viewer on a visceral level.
When it comes to the function and value of science, in my view, the speaker’s assertion is simply wrong. The final objective of science, in my view, is to discover truths about our world, our universe, and ourselves. Sometimes, these discoveries serve to reassure, and other times, they serve to upset. For example, many would consider reassuring the various laws and principles of physics that provide unifying explanations for what we observe in the physical world. These principles provide a reassuring sense of order, even simplicity, to an otherwise mysterious and perplexing world.
On the other hand, many scentific discoveries have clearly “upset” conventional notions about the physical world and the universe. The notions of a sun-centered universe, that humans evolved from lower primate forms, and that time is relative to space and motion are all disquieting notions to anyone whose belief system depends on contrary assumptions. And more recently, researchers have discovered that many behavioral traits are functions of individual neurological brain structure, determined at birth. This notion has “upset” many professionals in fields such as behavioral psychology, criminology, mental health, and law, whose work is predicated on the notion that undesirable human behavior can be changed—through various of reform and behavior modification.
In sum, the speaker overgeneralizes when it comes to the function and value of art and science—both of which serve in some cases to reassure and in other cases to upset. In any event, the speaker misstates the true function and value of science, which is to discover truths, whether reassuring or upsetting.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 184
"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
在没有数据之前就下结论是大忌。
Is it a “grave mistake” to theorize without data, as the speaker contends? I agree insofar as to theorize before collecting sufficient data is to risking tainting the process of collecting and interpreting further data. However, in a sense, the speaker begs the question by overlooking the fact that every theory requires some data to begin with. Moreover, the claim unfairly ignores equally grave consequences of waiting to theorize until we obtain too much data.
In one inportant respect, I agree with the speaker’s contention. A theory conjured up without the benefit of data amounts to little more than the theorist’s hopes and desires—what he or she wants to be true and not be true. Accordingly, this theorist will tend to seek out evidence that supports the theory and overlook or avoid evidence that refutes it. One telling historical example involves theories about the center of the universe. Understandably, we ego-driven humans would prefer that the universe revolve around us. Early theories presumed so for this reason, and subsequent observations that ran contrary to this ego-driven theory were ignored, while the observers were scorned and even vilified.
By theorizing before collecting data, the theorist also runs the risk of interpreting that data in a manner that makes it appear to lend more credence to the theory than it actually does. Consider the theory that Earth is flat. Any person with a clear view of the horizon must agree in all honesty that the evidence does not support the theory. Yet prior to Newtonian physics, the notion of a spherical Earth was so unsettling to people that they interpreted the arc-shaped horizen as evidence of a convex, yet nevertheless “flattish”, Earth.
Despite the merits of the speaker’s claim, I find it problematic in two crucial respects. First, common sense informs me that it is impossible to theorize in the first place without at least some data. How can theorizing without data be dangerous, as the speaker contends, if it is not even possible? While a theory based purely on fantasy might ultimately be born out by empirical observation, it is equally possible that it won’t. Thus, without prior data, a theory is not worth our time or attention.
Secondly, the speaker’s claim overlooks the inverse problem: the danger of continuing to acquire data without venturing a theory based on that data. To postpone theorizing until all the data is in might be to postpone it forever. The danger lies in the reasons we theorize and test our theories: to solve society’s problems and to make the world a better place to live. Unless we act timely based on our data, we render ourselves impotent. For example, governments tend to respond to urgent social problems by establishing agencies to collect data and think tanks to theorize about causes and solutions. These agencies and think tanks serve no purpose unless they admit that they will never have all the data and that no theory is foolproof and unless timely action is taken based on the best theory currently available –before the problem overwhelms us.
To sum up, I agree with the speaker insofar as a theory based on no data is not a theory but mere whimsy and fancy and insofar as by theorizing first, we tend to distort the extent to which data collected thereafter supports our own theory, neverthless, we put ourselves in equal peril by mistaking data for knowledge and progress, which require us not only to theorize but also to act upon our theories with some useful end in mind.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 203
"The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines."
理解一个社会特征的最好的方法就是研究那个社会所认为的伟大人物。
    The speaker claims that the character of a society’s heroes and heroines (‘heroes’ hereafter) reflects the character of that society. I tend to disagree. In my observation, a society chooses as its heroes not people who mirror the society but rather people whose character society’s members wish they could emulate but cannot –for want of character. Nevertheless, I concede that one particular type of hero—the sociopolitical hero—by definition mirrors the character of the society whose causes the hero champions.
First, consider the sports hero, whom in my observation society chooses not merely by virtue of athletic prowess. We consider some accomplished athletes heroes because they have overcome significant obstacles to achieve their goals. For example, Lance Armstrong was not the first Tour de France cycling champion from the U.S.; yet he was the first to overcome a life-threatening illness to win the race. We consider other accomplished athletes heroes because they give back to the society that lionize them. As Mohammed Ali fought not just for boxing titles but also for racial equality, so baseball hero Mark McGuire fights now for disadvantaged children, while basketball hero Magic Johnson fights for AIDS research and awareness. Yet, do the character traits and resulting charitable efforts of sports heroes reflect similar traits and efforts among our society at large? No, they simply reveal that we admire these traits and efforts in other people and wish we could emulate them—but for our own personal failings.
Next consider the military hero, who gains heroic stature by way of courage in battle or by otherwise facing certain defeat and emerging victorious. Consider former presidential hopeful John McCain, whom even his political opponents laud as a war hero for having not only endured years of torture as a prisoner of war but also for continuing to serve his country afterward. Do his patriotism and mettle reveal our society’s true character? Certainly not. They reveal only that we admire his courage, fortitude, and strength.
On the other hand, consider a third type of hero: the champion of social causes who inspires and incites society to meaningful political and social change. Such luminaries as India’s Mahatma Gandhi, America’s Martin Lurther King, South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, and Poland’s Lech Lawesa come immediately to mind. This unique brand of hero does reflect, and indeed must reflect, the character of the hero’s society. After all, it is the function of the social champion to call attention to the character of society, which having viewed its reflection in the hero is incited to act bravely—in accordance with its collective character.
In sum, I agree with the speaker’s claim only with respect to champions of society’s social cuases. Otherwise, what society deems heroic reflects instead a basic and universal human need for paragons—to whom we can refer as metaphors for the sorts of virtues that for lack of character, we cannot ourselves reflect.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 207
"Rituals and ceremonies help define a culture. Without them, societies or groups of people have a diminished sense of who they are."（4/1）
典礼和仪式有助于给一种文化下定义。没有典礼和仪式，人们就无法很好地了解 自己。
The speaker asserts that rituals and ceremonies are needed to any culture or group of people to retain a strong sense of identity. I agree that one purpose of ritual and ceremony is to preserve cultural identity, at least  in modern times. However, this is not their sole purpose; nor are ritual and ceremony the only means of preserving cultural identity.
I agree with the speaker insofar as one purpose of ritual and ceremony in today’s world is to preserve cultural identity. Native American tribes, for example, cling tenaciously to their traditonal ceremonies and rituals, which typically tell a story about tr4ibal heritage. The reason for maintaining these rituals and customs lies largely in the tribes’ 500-year struggle against assimilation, even extinction, at the hands of European intruders. An outward display of traditional customs and distinct heritage is needed to put the world on notice that each tribe is a distinct and autonomous people, with its own heritage, values, and ideas. Otherwise, the tribe risks total assimilation and loss of identity.
The lack of meaningful ritual and ceremony in homogenous mainstream American underscores this point. Other than a few gratuitous ceremonies such as weddings and funerals, we maintain no common rituals to set us apart from other cultures. The reson for this is that, as a whole, American has little cultural identity of its own anymore. Instead, it has become a patchwork quilt of many subcultures, such as Native Americans, Hasidic Jews, Amish, and urban African Americans—each of which resorts to some out ward demonstration of its distictiveness in order to establish and maintain a unique cultural identity.
Nevertheless, preserving cultural identity cannot be the only purpose of ritual and ceremony. Otherwise, how would one explain why isolated cultures that don’t need to distinguish themselves to preserve their identity nevertheless engage in their own distinct rituals and ceremonies? In fact, the initial purpose of ritual and ceremony is rooted not in cultural identity but rather superstition and spiritual belief. The original purpose of a ritual might have been to frighten away evil spirits, to bring about weather conditions favorable to bountiful harvests, or to entreat the gods for a successful hunt or for victory in battle. Even today, some primitive cultures engage in ritual s primarily for such reasons.
Nor are ritual and ceremony the only means of preserving cultural identity. For example, the Amish culture demonstrates its distictiveness through dress and lifestyle. Hasidic Jews set themselves apart by their dress, vocational choices, and dietary habits. And African Americans distinguish themselves today by their manner of speech and gesture. Of course, these subcultures have their own distinct ways of celebrating events such as weddings, coming of age, and so forth. Yet ritual and ceremony are not the primary means by which these subcultures maintain their identity.
In sum, to prevent total cultural assimilation into our modern-day homogenous soup, a subculture with a unique and proud heritge must maintain as outward display of that heritage—by way of ritual and ceremony. Nevertheless, ritual and ceremony serve a spiritual functin as wwell—one that has little to do with preventing cultural assimilation. Moreover, rituals and ceremonies are not the only means of preserving cultural identity.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 212
212 "If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable"
212． 只要一个目标是值得去实现的，那么任何努力都是有理由的。
    The speaker asserts that if a goal is worthy, then any means of attaining that goal is justifiable. In my view, this extreme position misses the point entirely. Whether certain means are justifiable in reaching a goal must be determined on a case-by-basis, by weighing the benefits of attaining the goal against the costs, or harm, that might accrue along the way. This applies equally to individual goals and to societal goals.
Consider the goal of completing a marathon running race. If I need to reduce my working hours to train for the race, thereby jeopardizing my job, of if I run a high risk of incurring a permanent injury by training enough to prepare adequately for the event, then perhaps my goal is not worth attaining. Yet if I am a physically challenged person with the goal of completing a highly publicized marathon, risking financial hardship or long-term injury might be worthwhile, not only for my own personal satisfaction but also for the inspiration that attaining the goal would provide many others.
Or consider the goal of providing basic food and shelter for an innocent child. Anyone would agree that this goal is highly worthy—considered apart from the means used to achieve it. But what if whose means involve stealing from others? Or what if they involve employing the child in a sweatshop at the expense of educating the child? Clearly, determining the worthiness of such goals requires that we confront moral dilemmas, which we each solve individually—based on our own conscience, value system, and notions of fairness and equity.
On a sociental level, we determine the worthiness of our goals in much the same way—by weighing competing interests. For instance, any thoughtful persom would agree that reducing air and water pollution is a worthy societal goal; clean air and water reduce the burden on our health-care resources and improve the quality of life for everyone in society. Yet to attain this goal, would we be justified in forcing entire industries out of business, thereby running the risk of economic paralysis and widespread unemployment? Or consider America’s intervention in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did America’s dual interest in a continuing flow of oil to the West and in deterring a potential threat against the security of the world justify our committing resources that could have been used instead for domestic social-welfare programs—or a myriad of other productive purposes? Both issues underscore the fact that the worthiness of a cosietal goal cannot be considered apart from the means and asverse consequences of a societal foal cannot be considered apart from the means and adverse consequences of attaining that goal.
In sum, the speaker begs the question. The worthiness of any goal, whether it be personal or societal, can be determined only by weighing the benefits of achieving the goal against its costs—to us as well as others.