ISSUE 136 刚开始写 希望大家多给建议 多拍砖

qyr1987UID: 2754639

Ample empirical evidence shows us the circumstance absent of choice very rarely occurs, though to some extent absolute, is the fact. Although there are some circumstances that choice is not available, such as something born with, in most cases, no matter acceptable or not, there is always at least choice.

The author did not take the circumstance that we are newly born into consideration: we can not choose which parents to nurture us or which country to born in; we can not choose what kind of family to born from. Those are the choices of our parents, not ours. What's more, we can not choose anything before we are able to aware of the world around us, of the things around us and of the meaning of the action we take and the language we speak: it is impossible for infants to choose a language to speak before they completely recognize of what is language and what to do with it.
Thus, the circumstance absent of choice does exist, but as time went, some of these conditions would be different with infants knowing more about the surroundings.

Those do not change with time are mostly cases that we do have a choice. In everyday life, for example, we all share the experience that there is no other way but to do something against our will, about which we may complain for no choice, like stealing for no money. Do we really have to steal when we have no money? That is no more than an excuse. We still have choices to beg rather than to steal if work is not available, even to wait to die if begging is not available too. Despite it seems against the common sense of living, choice itself always exists since death can be a choice. Take those committed suicide into account, they made their choice to die. Ever since death can be a choice, what else can not be?

In the political realm, words that they have no choice often heard from those in power. In the Water-Gate scandal, president Nixon seemed to have no choice but to withhold the truth, however, that is the excuse for his throne. He could have told the truth, but he did not for the purpose of continuing his presidency.

In the science realm, tragedy, like the famous martyr, Bruno, burnt at stake for free thought and relatively modern scientific ideas, always ascribes by authorities to having no choice but to protect the virtue of the contemporary truth by which grant their privilege. In fact, what they do behind that is just a protection for their privilege, has nothing to do with choice.

IIn the final analysis, those circumstances absent of choice do exist, but are fairly rare. Those truly no choice situation, confronting in everyday life, politics and science, seldom exists. It is just a matter of whether is choice is acceptable.

qyr1987UID: 2754639

好心人多给拍拍砖啊 言语激烈也欢迎啊