issue36 彻底混乱 严重超时+严重跑题（可我不得不跑） 怎么办？大家都来，能把这

arhooUID: 180462

------题目------
The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
------正文------
The controversy about whether the greatness of individuals can be judged by those who live after them or by their contemporaries always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime. In fact, when can such a judgment be made is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed. For example, Nobel Prize, one of the highest rewards for great achievements in regions ranging from physics, medicine to literature and peacekeeping, are only awarded to individuals still alive. With only few exceptions, most laureates are recognized in consensus as deserving such honor. Meanwhile, there are also widely revered greats who had not been longevous enough to witness the recognition of there achievements. The two opposite but balanced groups of evidences would refute a penchant to either side of the issue.

However, despite the difference between contemporary and posthumous recognition, it is not difficult to find a common rule: it is a process that takes time. In other words, recognitions are usually not immediate.

Such a delay can be largely explained by "the lack of lubrication" in the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed. For the achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it is prerequisite. However, so difficult may be the conduct of information in a occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, not to mention understanding. Some work, especially some original or avant-garde, might need an intermediary who is simultaneous capable of understanding the work and introducing it to the public, or at least a group of authorities. Ronald Coase, a Nobel Economics Prize winner, for example, received the Prize for自己先改一下，这里应该没for的 in his 70s when Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his work done 50 years before to the award committee.

Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which is after all relative. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity. God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. 帮我想个concrete的例子吧，脑子里只剩下抽象思维例子全跑光了

Finally, a really great achievement should stand the test of time. In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right but always open to rebut. The theories of Relativity and Big Bang are now accepted only because they still have not been proven wrong. Comparing to such magnificent motifs, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile the tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseur and this may also take time. The story of Van Gogh is a vivid example.

After all, the "friction" of both understanding and comparison is weakened by the increasing accessibility of information and cumulation of historical achievements. Nevertheless, the length of test may to some extent increase for many works are done on the "shoulders of giants." Maybe the only determinant of whether the greatness can be decided contemporarily or posthumously is, however vague, luck.

arhooUID: 180462

顶上来 有人能帮忙吗

yogurt4UID: 198389

粘下了,你等等,星期天

Mars3000UID: 198477

The controversy about whether the greatness of individuals can be judged by those who live after them or by their contemporaries always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime. In fact, when can such a judgment be made is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed. For example, Nobel Prize, one of the highest rewards for great achievements in regions ranging from physics, medicine to literature and peacekeeping, are only awarded to individuals still alive. With only few exceptions, most laureates are recognized in consensus as deserving such honor. Meanwhile, there are also widely revered greats who had not been longevous enough to witness the recognition of there achievements. The two opposite but balanced groups of evidences would refute a penchant to either side of the issue

However, despite the difference between contemporary and posthumous recognition, it is not difficult to find a common rule( it is a process that takes time. In other words, recognitions are usually not immediate.

Such a delay can be largely explained by "the lack of lubrication" in the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed. For the achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it is prerequisite. However, so difficult may be the conduct of information in a occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, not to mention understanding. Some work, especially some original or avant-garde, might need an intermediary who is simultaneous capable of understanding the work and introducing it to the public, or at least a group of authorities. Ronald Coase, a Nobel Economics Prize winner, for example, received the Prize for in his 70s when Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his workdone 50 years before to the award committee.

Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which is after all relative. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity. God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. 帮我想个concrete的例子吧，脑子里只剩下抽象思维例子全跑光了

Finally, a really great achievement should stand the test of time. In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right (but always open to rebut. The theories of Relativity and Big Bang are now accepted only because they still have not been proven wrong. Comparing to such magnificent motifs, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile the tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseur and this may also take time. The story of Van Gogh is a vivid example.

After all, the "friction" of both understanding and comparison is weakened by the increasing accessibility of information and cumulation of historical achievements. Nevertheless, the length of test may to some extent increase for many works are done on the "shoulders of giants." Maybe the only determinant of whether the greatness can be decided contemporarily or posthumously is, however vague, luck

[B]有空就帮我看看[/B]
ISSUE36
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254492
ISSUE32
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254144
ISSUE4
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252235
ISSUE148
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252935

Mars3000UID: 198477

[The controversy about whether the greatness of individuals can be judged by those who live after them or by their contemporaries always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime. In fact, when can such a judgment be made is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed. For example, Nobel Prize, one of the highest rewards for great achievements in regions ranging from physics, medicine to literature and peacekeeping, are only awarded to individuals still alive. With only few exceptions, most laureates are recognized in consensus as deserving such honor. Meanwhile, there are also widely revered greats who had not been longevous enough to witness the recognition of there achievements. The two opposite but balanced groups of evidences would refute a penchant to either side of the issue[B].（a long beginning）[/B]

However, despite the difference between contemporary and posthumous recognition, it is not difficult to find a common rule[B](能否换一下句式如a common rule is easy to find)[/B] : it is a process that takes time. In other words, recognitions are usually not immediate.

Such a delay can be largely explained by "the lack of lubrication" in the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed. For the achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it is prerequisite. However, so difficult may be the conduct of information in a occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, not to mention understanding. Some work, especially some original or avant-garde, might need an intermediary who is simultaneous[B](simultaneously) [/B]  capable of understanding the work and introducing it to the public, or at least a group of authorities. Ronald Coase, a Nobel Economics Prize winner, for example, received the Prize [B](,)[/B] for in his 70s when Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his work [B](,)[/B] done 50 years before[B](ago,) [/B]  to the award committee.

Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which is after all relative. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity. God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. 帮我想个concrete的例子吧，脑子里只剩下抽象思维例子全跑光了[B]（小地方，没见过世面，以为村长也是个人物，看似开玩笑，但想想看能不能用上）[/B]

Finally, a really great achievement should stand the test of time. In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right [B](too absolute,倒向不可知论)[/B] but always open to rebut. The theories of Relativity and Big Bang are now accepted only because they still have not been proven wrong. Comparing to such magnificent motifs, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile the tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseur and this may also take time. The story of Van Gogh is a vivid example.

After all, the "friction" of both understanding and comparison is weakened by the increasing accessibility of information and cumulation of historical achievements. Nevertheless, the length of test may to some extent increase for many works are done on the "shoulders of giants." Maybe the only determinant of whether the greatness can be decided contemporarily or posthumously is, however vague, luck[B]（说实话，这段我没看懂）[/B]

不好意思,我不会改变颜色,只能用粗体了

[B]有空就帮我看看[/B]
ISSUE36
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254492
ISSUE32
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254144
ISSUE4
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252235
ISSUE148
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252935

rhettUID: 198844

顶一个

鬼谷子UID: 159645

------题目------
The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
------正文------
The controversy about whether the greatness of individuals can be judged by those who live after them or by their contemporaries always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime. In fact, when can such a judgment be made is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed. For example, Nobel Prize, one of the highest rewards for great achievements in regions ranging from physics, medicine to literature and peacekeeping, are only awarded to individuals still alive. With only few exceptions, most laureates are recognized in consensus as deserving such honor. Meanwhile, there are also widely revered greats who had not been longevous enough to witness the recognition of there achievements. The two opposite but balanced groups of evidences would refute a penchant to either side of the issue. 【开头太长了，例子放在后文比较好，而且，觉得你到最后的时候也没有提出自己的观点】

However, despite the difference between contemporary and posthumous recognition, it is not difficult to find a common rule: it【what？be specific】 is a process that takes time. In other words, recognitions are usually not immediate. 【这段感觉是题目观点未完成的继续，单独提出是什么用意呢？而且，你说的是这个评价需要时间，那么是否就是同意了后人才能正确评价呢？我觉得这个立论不好，因为，从你的论述来看，你的观点是要把前人后人的评价综合起来才是真正的评价，那么，你仔细想一想，综合这个评价的还是后人，这样的观点实际上就是赞同了题目，伟大是由后人评价的】

Such a delay 【这个delay其实隐含的就是赞同题目的观点】can be largely explained by "the lack of lubrication" in the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed. For the achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it【what？】 is prerequisite. However, so difficult may be the conduct of information in a occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, not to mention understanding. 【你这里需要交代时间上的问题，现代的社会可不是occlusive的】Some work, especially some original or avant-garde, might need an intermediary who is simultaneous capable of understanding the work and introducing it to the public, or at least a group of authorities. Ronald Coase, a Nobel Economics Prize winner, for example, received the Prize for自己先改一下，这里应该没for的 in his 70s when Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his work done 50 years before to the award committee. 【大概明白了你说的lubrication是你说的传播翻译信息的intermediary，例子还是诺贝尔奖的，我觉得这个比较特例】

Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which is after all relative. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity. God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. 帮我想个concrete的例子吧，脑子里只剩下抽象思维例子全跑光了【感觉你提出的这个比较的问题还是在说同时代的人不能正确认识到伟大】

Finally, a really great achievement should stand the test of time. In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right but always open to rebut. The theories of Relativity and Big Bang are now accepted only because they still have not been proven wrong. 【这个例子不好】Comparing to such magnificent motifs, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile the tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseur and this may also take time. The story of Van Gogh is a vivid example. 【太简略，不要让读者去猜，感觉你到最后也没有说清楚如何算是真正的评价，只是说需要时间，这是问题的现象，不是问题的本质】

After all, the "friction" of both understanding and comparison is weakened by the increasing accessibility of information and cumulation 【accumulation】of historical achievements. Nevertheless, the length of test may to some extent increase for many works are done on the "shoulders of giants." Maybe the only determinant of whether the greatness can be decided contemporarily or posthumously is, however vague, luck.【不是人来决定的是运气？】

【其实你的论述一直都是说同时代的人无法正确的评价伟人，只有后人才可以，还是同意了题目的观点。你说的伟人命不够长而被当时埋没，那么如果不是后世的人做成了正确的评价，你怎么知道他的伟大，你怎么知道他是伟人，你怎么知道前人的评价是错的呢？对于你说的缺少intermediary的问题，还是当时的时代的局限，现在的社会已经不是occlusive的了，所以还是后人可以做成正确评价的。还有你说的对比的问题，也是说由于当时的局限，只能于同时代的人对比，故而不能正确评价。感觉你需要重新调整你的思路。从赞同的角度来写吧。加油！】

arhooUID: 180462

鬼鬼的一路批评果然把我的思路理顺了很多。
回应一下：
写这篇文章时候有两个动机：一是进行一下试验，避开题目的either-or question而从中抽点共性出来，故意跑题，到底能不能被接受，或者说，这样到底算不算跑题。二是调侃一下ETS的考题，区分生前还是生后做出评价有意义么？是死是活对评判有本质上的影响吗？活不活得到recognition还不是运气？

开头太长了，例子放在后文比较好，而且，觉得你到最后的时候也没有提出自己的观点

这个巨大的开头也是试验的一部分，想试试看不用常规的总分总式，而是开篇就结合例子来说明这个issue里任何一方的倾向都可以轻松被反例驳倒，这两方面的反例是interlock的。所以这个issue的讨论没有意义。

这个delay其实隐含的就是赞同题目的观点

文章主题事实上是对recognition的达成被delay（但谁说这个delay一定要delay到伟人去世啊？）的原因的探讨。recognition的形成需要三个要素：理解、比较、检验。三个要素的实现都需要时间，其中“理解”和“比较”往往因lack of lubrication而受阻，而test的耗时是天生的。可这些因素还是都和生前生后没有关系呀，为什么大家认为delay一定导致生后才能作出评判啊？

对于你说的缺少intermediary的问题，还是当时的时代的局限，现在的社会已经不是occlusive的了，所以还是后人可以做成正确评价的

鬼鬼说的队。其实，这也是我在结尾段向阐明的：随着时间的推移，信息流通越来越通畅，understanding的阻力越来越弱；新的事物层出不穷，百花齐放，再加上历史的积淀，comparison的阻力也变得很小。这是一个方向的趋势。然而，test这个因素就不一定了。站在越高的基础上，我们做出的成就可能是越来越magnificent，test所需的时间可能反而增加了（不过这一点我现在想想倒是可以商榷的。时代的进步，不论是对科学理论检验的手段，还是对艺术、思想的批评，都有了很大发展。可以认为test的时间会越来越短）起码在原文的基础上，这是另一个方向的趋势。两正一负，天知道greatness被认同的时间到底是缩短了还是增加了。这个结论是比较肤浅，但我真的不知道如何再深入。话说回来，现象本来就是表面的，但是我也分析了现象的原因了呀。

总而言之，如果我的论证让人感觉还倾向于赞同题目，那我就是彻底失败了。痛改痛改…… 不过我还是不想选择赞同立场的……呵呵……最讨厌什么“盖棺定论”的说法了……

真的谢谢大家，尤其是鬼鬼，虽然我重写不会采取你建议的赞同立场，但是思路一下子畅了，几本打算这样写，大家看看行不行：

观点：反对 思路：过去和现在纵向对比
1.承认历史上，很多伟大的成就直到人去世很久才被肯定
2.从understanding, comparison, test三个过程解释后世评判的原因
3.however，今非昔比，阻碍三大过程实现的因素均已减弱甚至近乎消失，因此在当今，greatness在同时代就得到客观评判越来越成为可能。

这样可不可以啊？

yogurt4UID: 198389

------题目------
The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
------正文------
The controversy about whether the greatness of individuals can be judged by those who live after them or by their contemporaries always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime. In fact, when can such a judgment be made is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed.题目说的不是什么时候做出评价，而是哪一种人能做出更公正客观的评价 For example, Nobel Prize, one of the highest rewards for great achievements in regions ranging from physics, medicine to literature and peacekeeping, are only awarded to individuals still alive. This is a fact, not an example. An example is a combination of the fact and your explanations. Only the fact can not express your ideas effectively  With only a few exceptions, most laureates are recognized in consensus as deserving such honor. Meanwhile, there are also widely revered greats who had not been longevous enough to witness the recognition of there their achievements. The two opposite but balanced groups of evidences would refute a penchant to either side of the issue.与其摆一段这样的话在这里，还不如把你的观点拿到这里具体说一说
However, despite the difference between contemporary and posthumous recognition, What is the difference between the two? I don’t know that difference. it is not difficult to find a common rule: it is a process the process of evaluation that takes time. In other words, recognitions are usually not immediate. 这几句话放在这里作为一段太单薄了， 要么和其他的句群和为一段，要么再拓展一下， 分析或者例子都可以。
这两段没有从整体上表达一个很清楚的意思，看了有点晕。 句式是要有变化，但你的变化好象过了一点，结果反而影响了它们的连贯性。不过我喜欢关于process takes time 的想法
Such a delay can be largely explained by "the lack of lubrication" in the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed. For the achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it is prerequisite. However, so difficult may be the conduct of information in a occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, not to mention understanding. Some work, especially some original or avant-garde, might need an intermediary who is simultaneous capable of understanding the work and introducing it to the public, or at least a group of authorities. Ronald Coase, a Nobel Economics Prize winner, for example, received the Prize for 不要这个for 更好 in his 70s when Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his work done 50 years before to the award committee.
据我所知，好像没有任何人可以向诺贝尔评委会介绍，或是推荐任何人，任何作品。这是为了保证评选结果公平而特别在评奖规则中规定的，你可能不知道
我没看出来你这一段和上头的那一段有什么联系，和题目扯的也有一点远。评价的前提是理解，理解需要中间人，如果这些需要时间，你要在文章中间加入更多的衔接部分。即使这样，你的论述的结论和题目有什么关系？
Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which is after all relative. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity. God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. 帮我想个concrete的例子吧，脑子里只剩下抽象思维例子全跑光了

Finally, a really great achievement should stand the test of time.到这里，the greatness of INDIVIDUALS被你写成了 great achievement In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right but always open to rebut. The theories of Relativity and Big Bang are now accepted only because they still have not been proven wrong. Comparing to such magnificent motifs, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile the tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseur and this may also take time. The story of Van Gogh is a vivid example.

After all, the "friction" of both understanding and comparison is weakened by the increasing accessibility of information and cumulationaccumulation of historical achievements. Nevertheless, the length of test may to some extent increase for many works are done on the "shoulders of giants." Maybe the only determinant of whether the greatness can be decided contemporarily or posthumously is, however vague, luck.
优点，你有不错的语言功底；缺点，跑题，结构不清；其实我很想建议你重写。请留下你对我的修改的意见，3q!


好像来晚了,555

arhooUID: 180462

谢谢 yogurt的分析细致入微，而且都点到了关键的地方~~~

题目说的不是什么时候做出评价，而是哪一种人能做出更公正客观的评价

嗯，我可能太想标新立异了，忽略了这个关键，也就是说从这里开始我已经跑题了

This is a fact, not an example. An example is a combination of the fact and your explanations. Only the fact can not express your ideas effectively

The two opposite but balanced groups of evidences would refute a penchant to either side of the issue.这个算不算explanation？

这几句话放在这里作为一段太单薄了， 要么和其他的句群和为一段，要么再拓展一下， 分析或者例子都可以。

看来这段是公认的硬伤了

据我所知，好像没有任何人可以向诺贝尔评委会介绍，或是推荐任何人，任何作品。这是为了保证评选结果公平而特别在评奖规则中规定的，你可能不知道

1.事实上，每年评奖委员会（什么瑞典皇家科学院？忘记掉了）都会发信要求一大批权威学者推荐并评价前一年里这个领域的出色工作。起码我知道物理学是这样，我认识一个老师就被邀请作过推荐工作。
2.Ronald Coase确有其事。因为他的工作，关于社会成本问题和所谓的“科斯定理”，经济学界大都误解其真正含义，所以后来委员会（当然经济奖和其它奖不是一个系统的）请张五常出来解释科斯的理论

到这里，the greatness of INDIVIDUALS被你写成了 great achievement

这个……我本来还以为问题不大呢……greatness应该适合achievement紧密联系的吧，individual这个词每次都要敲上去太麻烦就省掉了，不好啊？那我改

进一步认识到了这篇文章的结构混乱……

arhooUID: 180462

重写了，但还是越看越不爽，看来还要重写

When can the greatness of individuals be judged is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed. In fact, the controversy always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime, such as longevity, personal interest and even luck. However, an abstract of generality in both contemporary and posthumous judgments and a longitudinal view through history suggest that nowadays the probability of contemporary judgment tend to be much higher than before.

Admittedly, the history is teeming with examples of epoch-making figures who only received posthumous fame. Being the first discoverer of DNA as the carrier of heredity information, Oswald Avery failed to convince his colleagues before his death. Cantor, now acknowledged as the founder of set theory in Math, was harshly rebuked by the authorities such as Poincare and finally driven mad. Nevertheless, the delay is not unique for those who were not lucky enough to witness the recognition of their own achievements. Ronald Coase, a great contributor to institutional economics, finally received Nobel Economics Prize in his 70s, largely for his work done 50 years before.

Despite these historical figures, we expect such delay to be more transitory in nowaday society. A close look into the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed might explain the reason. For an achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it is prerequisite. However this process has suffered from "lack of lubrication". So difficult may be the conduct of information in a occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, let alone understood it. Especially, some original or avant-garde works, might need an intermediaries who are simultaneous capable of understanding them and introducing them to the public, or at least to a group of authorities. Take the example of Ronald Coase again, his receival of Nobel Prize, to some extent, can be attributed to the fact that Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his work to the prize committee.

Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which also suffers from occlusion or "lack of lubrication". One may be confused by that how could an objective judgment rely on comparison, which is a relative process. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity. God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. The difficulty, to put it more vividly, "the lack of lubrication" of be understood and compared, is expected to be greatly reduced today, for the society is hardly occlusive anymore. Magazines such as Nature and Science serves to introduce the most recent works of scholars to the public, internet has made the conduction of information unprecedentedly convenient and efficient, and international cooperation and cross-discipline studies has cultivate every realm of research so prolific that counterparts for comparison are no longer unacquirable.

The last factor for an achievement to be proved great is the tests it should stand. In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right but always open to rebut. Comparing to magnificent motifs such as the theories about time and space, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseurs and those may also take time. As both the methodology and methods of test for hypothesis are more developed, the discussions, critiques and exhibitions of artistic works are more open, we do expect the tragedies of Avery and Van Gogh to have less modern counterparts.

In conclusion, although the speaker's opposite opinion finds some support in the past, its validity gradually fades away as we move our sight to the present. It may be presumptuous to assert that from now on the greatness of every individual will be recognized by contemporaries, we see, however, a general tendency that more achievements are obtaining the opportunity to receive objective verdicts when their doers are still alive.

yogurt4UID: 198389

呵呵,我在帮你看看,粘下了,等等啊

arhooUID: 180462

辛苦yogurt了

yogurt4UID: 198389

When can the greatness of individuals be judged is not an either-or question as the speaker claimed. In fact, the controversy always misleads us to place too much focus on the differences between contemporaneity and aftertime, such as longevity, personal interest and even luck.你的这些differences 都说的太笼统抽象了，我还很不懂luck的意思，如果是运气的话，luck 和时间又有什么关系？ However, an abstract of generality in both contemporary and posthumous judgments and a longitudinal view through history suggest that nowadays the probability of contemporary judgment tend to be much higher than before.

Admittedly, the history is teeming with examples of epoch-making figures who only received posthumous fame. Being the first discoverer of DNA as the carrier of heredity information, Oswald Avery failed to convince his colleagues before his death. Cantor, now acknowledged as the founder of set theory in Math, was harshly rebuked by the authorities such as Poincare and finally driven mad. Nevertheless, the delay is not unique for those who were not lucky enough to witness the recognition of their own achievements. Ronald Coase, a great contributor to institutional economics, finally received Nobel Economics Prize in his 70s, largely for his work done 50 years before.

Despite these historical figures, we expect such delay to be more transitory in nowaday nowadays society. A close look into the mechanism of how recognition of greatness is formed might explain the reason. For an achievement of an individual to be identified, a broad understanding of it is prerequisite. However this process has suffered from "lack of lubrication". So difficult may be the conduct of information in a an  occlusive society that people even have never heard of an actually devoting work, let alone understood it. Especially, some original or avant-garde works, might need an no an intermediaries who are simultaneous capable of understanding them and introducing them to the public, or at least to a group of authorities. Take the example of Ronald Coase again, his receival 好象没这个词吧 of Nobel Prize, to some extent, can be attributed to the fact that Steven Cheung, another economist, managed to introduce his work to the prize committee.
第一点，….such delay to be more transitory in nowadays society 是不是你的主题句？如果是的话，就又和后面脱节了。而且，评论需要理解，需要中间人，这样的过程能使delay to be more transitory吗？好象反了。其次，除去这个有争议的一句，你似乎脱离了当代和后代的时间关系。按照你的想法“recognition的形成需要三个要素：理解、比较、检验。三个要素的实现都需要时间，其中“理解”和“比较”往往因lack of lubrication而受阻，而test的耗时是天生的。可这些因素还是都和生前生后没有关系呀，为什么大家认为delay一定导致生后才能作出评判啊？”（很有见解），你应该明确的强调一下三个因素和时间没关系，或是提出自己对delay的定义，人的正常想法都会是，哪有delay 是不花时间的？

Moreover, comparison is another vital factor for recognition, which also suffers from occlusion or "lack of lubrication". One may be confused by that how could an objective judgment rely on comparison, which is a relative process. However, relativity is in no contradiction with objectivity.不要这一句意思更清楚 God never bestowed us a scale to measure the greatness of an achievement, therefore, judgment can only be made when comparing with historical or contemporary counterparts. Similarly, difficulty in spread of information together with scarcity of comparable objects may defer the recognition. The difficulty, to put it more vividly, "the lack of lubrication" of be understood and compared, is expected to be greatly reduced today, for the society is hardly occlusive anymore. Magazines such as Nature and Science serves to introduce the most recent works of scholars to the public, internet has made the conduction of information unprecedentedly convenient and efficient,前面的这两个并列放到上一段比较合适 and international cooperation and cross-discipline studies has cultivate every realm of research so prolific that counterparts for comparison are no longer unacquirable.

The last factor for an achievement to be proved great is the tests it should stand. In the realm of science, the tests are often enduring, since any scientific theory is a hypothesis that can never be proven right but always open to rebut. Comparing to magnificent motifs such as the theories about time and space, the longevity of human are always negligible in the process of the test. Meanwhile tests of artistic works are mainly from critics and connoisseurs and those may also take time. As both the methodology and methods of test for hypothesis are more developed, the discussions, critiques and exhibitions of artistic works are more open, we do expect the tragedies of Avery and Van Gogh to have less modern counterparts.

In conclusion, although the speaker's opposite opinion finds some support in the past, its validity gradually fades away as we move our sight to the present. It may be presumptuous to assert that from now on the greatness of every individual will be recognized by contemporaries, we see, however, a general tendency that more achievements are obtaining the opportunity to receive objective verdicts when their doers are still alive
最后我读的清楚多了。你在论述当代人更能给出客观评价时，提出了当代社会，信息发展的优势，也要相应的提提过去在这些方面的不足。还有，我觉得文章过于强调评价的及时性，而缺少对其公正性的讨论。
    汗~~~~怎么会有这么多的难词, 翻字典都翻晕了,呵呵.....

arhooUID: 180462

yogurt的评论让我想起那篇《庖丁解牛》的文章……句句中的啊 再改去了~