同主题写作第二期issue36&issue241

poohUID: 146994

  请下载附件，里面有图示，帖子里面这个版本并不全
Issue36 The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.

【s实际上，这道题和Issue241"An individual’s greatness cannot be judged objectively by his or her contemporaries; the most objective evaluators of a person’s greatness are people who belong to a later time."  是一样的，大家可以选择一篇写】-----by David

分析题目：
1 关键词分析：
greatness 这个词再简单不过了，不就是great的名次形式嘛。我们可以抓住这个词对题目进行扩展，从而把看起来单薄的题目丰富起来。以下是图例。Greatness可以在以下五个方面扩展，也就是说文章的内容可以涉及到如下的领域。请下载附件，里面有图表，列出了各种因素



2 另一个重点词decided
首先greatness是一个客观现实，也就是说一个人做了什么、对社会对历史起了多大的作用和贡献都是客观存在的，而不是人决定的（decided）.
但是对greatness的评价可以说是个主观的过程，不同的人处于不同的历史和社会环境、拥有不同的知识背景，都会有不同的评价，这就是文章的切入点。正因为有着种种的不同，所以才会产生认识上的差异。


3 结构分析：
二选一式的结构…can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
可以完全同意前者,i.e. by those who live after them, 也可以完全支持后者，i.e. their greatness can be decided by their contemporaries.
或者采取case by case的策略，分自然科学、社会科学、艺术等领域分别讨论，得出不同的或相同的答案。
实际上，issue题目很多都没有固定的答案，很难对所有的问题套用一个模式。但是有的问题可以找出大的趋势，虽然总会有反例出现，那么可以针对大趋势重点分析原因，反例也要提一下，解释发生的原因。


4 比较
因为题目是二选一式的，尽管我们不一定要完全同意一方，但是题目的形式注定这个题目的重点要放在比较上面，也就是为什么同时代的人不能够（或能够）或后来的人能够决定。可以从以下几个方面展开
如图请下载附件，里面有图表，列出了各种因素



5 考虑人们认识事物的过程
人们对于事物的感知认识是有个过程的，这个过程受很多因素的制约。如图请下载附件，里面有图表，列出了各种因素

例如：周围生活中发生的事情易感知
这就决定了发生在社会生活领域中的一些事情和对这些领域有贡献的人容易被认识到和被肯定，例如Mother Teresa, 她对穷人的照顾和关怀是显而易见的，所以她在世的时候就被授予了Noble Prize, 再比如Martin Luther King和南非总统曼德拉反对种族歧视的运动也都立刻得到了人们的肯定。

例如：专业领域难认知
如果我们不是某一领域的专家可能就很难评判某人在这个领域的贡献和影响，所以就必然依赖于这一领域的专家，从专家到普通人的承认显然需要一个过程。
另一问题是，是专家、权威并不总是可信的和公正的，因为评价是一个主观的过程，如果专家并不客观的去评判，就导致某一伟大的figure被埋没，似乎在数学界和艺术界比较普遍。例如Van Gogh, 记得爱因斯坦好像还对某一后来很厉害的figure的证明不屑一顾，随便得丢到了一边儿。

我就简单分析以上几点，其他的靠大家自己去思考和分析。这篇issue的关键在于解释原因和比较，仅仅往上罗列例子和名人，就只能停留在表层，无法做到深入。

davidjackyUID: 135962

同主题写作第二期习作推荐一
【作者：老外280        Edited by David on Mar. 6th 2005】

Can a person's greatness be recognized only in retrospect, by those who live after the person, as the speaker maintains? In my view the speaker unfairly generalizes. In some areas, especially the arts, greatness is often recognizable in its nascent stages. However, in other areas, particularly the physical sciences, greatness must be tested over time before it can be confirmed. In still other areas, such as business, the incubation period for greatness varies from case to case.

We do not require a rear-view mirror to recognize artistic greatness--whether in music, visual arts, or literature. The reason for this is simple: art can be judged at face value. There's nothing to be later proved or disproved, affirmed or discredited, or even improved upon or refined by further knowledge or newer technology. History is replete with examples of artistic greatness immediately recognized, then later confirmed. Through his patronage, the Pope recognized Michelangelo's artistic greatness, while the monarchs of Europe immediately recognized Mozart's greatness by granting him their most generous commissions. Mark Twain became a best-selling author and household name even during his lifetime. And the leaders of the modernist school of architecture marveled even as Frank Lloyd Wright was elevating their notions about architecture to new aesthetic heights.

By contrast, in the sciences it is difficult to identify greatness without the benefit of historical perspective. Any scientific theory might be disproved tomorrow, thereby demoting the theorist's contribution to the status of historical footnote. Or the theory might withstand centuries of rigorous scientific scrutiny. In any event, a theory may or may not serve as a springboard for later advances in theoretical science. A current example involves the ultimate significance of two opposing theories of physics: wave theory and quantum theory. Some theorists now claim that a new so-called "string" theory reconciles the two opposing theories--at least mathematically. Yet "strings" have yet to be confirmed empirically. Only time will tell whether string theory indeed provides the unifying laws that all matter in the universe obeys. In short, the significance of contributions made by theoretical scientists cannot be judged by their contemporaries--only by scientists who follow them.

In the realm of business, in some cases great achievement is recognizable immediately, while in other cases it is not. Consider on the one hand Henry Ford's assembly-line approach to manufacturing affordable cars for the masses. Even Ford could not have predicted the impact his innovations would have on the American economy and on the modern world. On the other hand, by any measure, Microsoft's Bill Gates has made an even greater contribution than Ford; after all, Gates is largely responsible for lifting American technology out of the doldrums during the 1970s to restore America to the status of economic powerhouse and technological leader of the world. And this contribution is readily recognizable now--as it is happening. Of course, the DOS and Windows operating systems, and even Gates' monopoly, might eventually become historical relics. Yet his greatness is already secured.

In sum, the speaker overlooks many great individuals, particularly in the arts and in business, whose achievements were broadly recognized as great even during their own time. Nevertheless, other great achievements, especially scientific ones, cannot be confirmed as such without the benefit of historical perspective.

同主题写作第二期习作推荐二
【作者：POOH】
原文链接：
https://bbs.gter.net/showthre ... p;highlight=issue36
When people come across such question ‘Who can verdict the greatness of individuals’, it is those who live after them or those contemporaries, People are easily misled into a dilemma. Because they would mistake the question as: it is the time that the commenters live in that matters when evaluating the greatness of individuals and thus they are forced to make a choice between the alternatives, which may keep them from unveiling the truth. I propose that since the system of our cognition develops in a gradual way, and the system of our knowledge is accumulating bit by bit. If the greatness of individuals could be realized by the temporal knowledge and live up to the available criterion, their greatness could be valued by their contemporaries; otherwise, a course must be needed to recognize their greatness as the advancement in knowledge and technology.

On the one hand, the contribution of individuals could be respected if their contributions could be understood within human beings' cognition system. Any evaluation indeed is based on the agreement of at least a number of people, most likely experts, in the relevant field, if is not recognized by the most populace. How could these people criticize on the contributions of the individuals? To what extend that the contribution could be recognized as greatness? According to our own experiences, when one appraises the contribution of an individual, there must be a criterion that comes from the present system of his or her knowledge .Then after a comparison with the standard , one finally draw an conclusion on the merit of the very thing. If the contribution happens to be qualified as greatness, that is because it counts for the paradigm that represents the greatness in his or her criterion. For instance, as a great writer, Shakespeare has been greatly valued from his period till now, not only in that his works are classic masterpieces no matter in terms of transcendent mastery of rhetoric or in terms of his harness of the dramatic conflictions, but also for the humanism that complied with the groundswell of Renaissance is emphasized throughout his playwrites and poems. In another word, from the form to the content of his works all can resonate his contemporary readers. Therefore, if the system of cognition and knowledge of the commenters could develop to the extent as to understand the contributions or works of these individuals , these individuals' greatness could be cherished as great treasuries.

On the other hand, what if the system of cognition and knowledge of the contemporaries are confined to a certain degree, at the same time those individuals ' contributions transcend. History has been fraught with examples. A case in point is Bruno, who used Copernican principles in formulating his cosmic theory of an infinite universe. Condemned by the Inquisition for heresy, immoral conduct, and blasphemy, he was burned at the stake. A heretic he was seen at that time, he has been thought of high now and his viewpoint is accepted widely nowadays even as a basic knowledge. What makes such a big difference could ascribe to the varied structure of knowledge system of people in distant times. In Bruno’s time, people's mind and body are confined and supervised by the Inquisition, as well as the knowledge were only limited in theology and philosophy and science was only a baby in the cradle. Bruno’s idea drastically impacted on the contemporary system of knowledge and even shattered the very basis of value system into pieces. Since the idea is so alien to the traditional one, it is antagonized. However, what he held on has become the common knowledge of everyone of our era after it is further explored and proven by following scientist. In this case, though heroes like Bruno were neglected by their contemporaries, with the development of human being's knowledge and cognition system, sooner or later their ray of light will penetrate the dark clouds and shine like a star in history.

Admittedly, the evaluation on the greatness of individuals may not always be disinterested and fair and there must be a tortuous course for the greatness to gain the righteous judgment. After all, as a social creature, human beings cannot transcend his or her and few have the ability to foresee the future.
In sum, the course of human being's cognition is a gradual one and the cognition system varies from time to time as the development of knowledge. If the greatness of individuals could be realized by the temporal knowledge and cognition system, it is more likely that their greatness could be valued by their contemporaries; otherwise, there must be a course to recognize the greatness with the ever-adjusting knowledge system of human beings.

同主题写作第二期习作推荐三
作者：needle
原文链接：https://bbs.gter.net/showthre ... p;highlight=issue36

同主题写作第二期习作推荐四
Haiya发表 【naiba369修改稿】－第九楼
原文链接：https://bbs.gter.net/showthre ... p;highlight=issue36

davidjackyUID: 135962

zhoulin00001
2月26日发表
观点：后代和同代人都可来评判伟人
TS：
B1通过比较和时间的检验，后来人才会意识到伟人贡献的巨大价值。爱因斯坦的相对论
B2过去的当代人对新的理论有偏见，并且还有阻止新生事务发展的内在本性。达尔文
B3 本来应该讲现代人评论伟人，但是作者跑题了。
例子：爱因斯坦的相对论、达尔文进化论
意见与改进：参照范文好好修改，希取得较大进步。
文章链接：https://bbs.gter.net/showthre ... 1291537#post1291537

朽木白哉
3月6日发表
观点：部分同意部分反对
TS：
B1有部分人做出的贡献可能是无形的抽象的 不能被立即运用 可能被同时代的人忽略
B2在不同的时代条件下 人们对一些贡献的有不同的态度。有的就可以被同时代的人认可.
B3有的人虽然生前被认可，但死后得到的认可更多。
所以不是同时代的人或者后人单独决定的。 伟大的 不管谁来决定都伟大
文章链接：https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=253042

naiba369UID: 131655

up

poohUID: 146994

还是老外280的那个角度容易写

我写issue36的时候思路没有现在这么开阔，可能就只是针对一点来写的。希望楼顶的分析可以带来更多的启发。

so猫UID: 148633

先写思路先~文章等下上课完了回来写

issue36
ID: so猫
X月X日发表: 等待中
观点: 全盘否定
认为无论是现在还是将来一个人的伟大与否本质上由他所做的成就决定, 他人和后世对其功过做出的评论只是从一定程度上对其做的反馈, 而不是最终的决定因素.

例子：看到时候想到哪些了~

文章链接：还未 等待中~

staralwaysUID: 193479

POOH姐姐那篇我认真看过的呢！（我的就差远了）

will_foreverUID: 193568

嗯，准备写作业了……

flyrainUID: 194955

好东西!
我刚才用写字板打开没看到图,换了WORD就看到了,奇怪哈

kkytUID: 188814

明天交作业

davidjackyUID: 135962

最初由 kkyt 发布
[B]明天交作业 [/B]

可以先把针对题目进行讨论。明天把文章的链接再加上来

davidjackyUID: 135962

最初由 pooh 发布
[B]  请下载附件，里面有图示，帖子里面这个版本并不全
Issue36 The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, ..

以下省略...... [/B]

谢谢POOH的分析，我觉得分析这么多篇文章之后，包括我自己写文章也存在缺乏深入分析的问题，所以给出的例子不仅要结合TS，而且要进行一些周到的分析才是重心

walterechoUID: 198230

我写过这个主题，发上来是作为跟贴还是单发一主题？

davidjackyUID: 135962

最初由 walterecho 发布
[B]我写过这个主题，发上来是作为跟贴还是单发一主题？ [/B]

按照如下格式发贴：

ID
X月X日发表
观点：
TS及如何论证
B1
B2
B3

例子：

文章链接：
谢谢

windpassmeUID: 153908

windpassme
3.6
ts伟大的定义随时间而变，后人的定义实际上并不一定符合评价对象当时的作用
b1从科学角度
b2从人文角度，薄弱了一些
b3解释为什么人们会有时间决定伟大的幻觉

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=253108