Issue186 求互改

lmfredUID: 183247

新手上路，有点借鉴北美范文中的思路，写了一个半小时，提纲（时间不算）和全文如下，欢迎大家拍砖！

Issue 186 Is Practicality our idol in today’s world?
“Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not obviously practical has little value in today’s world.”

Position: The value of things cannot be solely determined by whether they are practical or not.
(1) Concede: practicality means immediate effect, it improves efficiency and we need it in many cases;
(2) However, there are two compelling arguments against taking practicality as the primary goal:
Doing research. Technical innovation: contribute to economic benefit in a short time, but may introduce hazard in the long run or in other aspects; Scientific progress: often have no tangible effects, but takes many years to be transformed into practical products or techniques, however its importance can never be denied.
(3) The last argument concerns to whom it is practical. As for a society, there are various groups. Practicality for each one of them may not be valid for the whole. Social policies may appear to be practical for some people but not the others.



The speaker asserts that practicality is the center of everything we do nowadays. This might be true in some aspects of our lives where practicality leads to a better life. However, I cannot agree with the statement because the speaker overstates the importance of utility, and equals value to superficial usefulness which is unnecessarily true in most cases.

In the most general form, practicality means immediate effect and usefulness which is indeed one important goal of many man-made products and structures in our everyday life. They embody the idea of utilitarianism, ranging from the tower-like buildings that can hold a mass of people to the numerous cars running on highways everyday. The foundation of practicality can be traced to the human instinct of using tools. Up to millions of years ago, our ancestors already know how to get warm by fire from flints; and the whole history of industrial revolution seems to back up the argument that utility is the primary concern of human progress. Yet, even all of these are only one facet of human nature. If men only consider usefulness in designing houses and cars, why are there also a large amount of luxurious villas and limousines, and why are many people willing to spend most of their lives to be able to purchase one of them? That kind of things can hardly be said to be practical in the sense of the high ratio of cost to the usefulness, yet they are valuable in any sense. Sometimes people want those products only to show their dignity or wealth instead of using them.

On the other hand, there are two compelling arguments against taking practicality as the primary goal. One such argument concerns the human activity of doing research. First consider the research in the scientific arena, in which scarcely anyone knows the result of one project in advance. The most lucid example would be the Mars exploration program conducted by NASA under the U.S. government support. A large amount of scientists, engineers and consultants are involved into this project only to make a vehicle that is sent to Mars, a planet faraway from our globe. Yet the outcome has little effect upon average citizens, since no common people benefits from knowing about whether there is water and atmosphere on Mars at least in the recent century. But does that justify not carrying out one of the most reputable venture ever in human history? Regarding the human curiosity and the potential value to our descendants, perhaps no informed person would agree. In addition, the history also tells us that the usefulness of many great scientific discoveries was noticed a long time afterwards, such as the formulas of early quantum mechanics were adopted by Einstein several decades later.

A second argument against the speaker’s point lies in the development of art and literature. Perhaps nobody would deny the significance of arts and literature to everyday lives and the progress of our whole society, yet many forms of art can hardly yield tangible utility. Arts are developed out of everyday life when people had spare time and were fed up by routine works. A few artists who are creative begin to embody their thoughts about human activities and emotions in pieces of art, in order to lift human spirit, save our minds from violence, war, and degeneracy. Their works touch the bottom of our hearts and induce resonances, such as Beethoven’s famous ninth symphony, and the Hemmingway’s book: The old man and the sea. These masterpieces stand up the test of the time and would not fade out in many centuries. However, they appear not to be obviously practical in terms of the economical effect they can bring to us; rather, they are invaluable as spiritual properties.

The speaker’s assertion is also troubling in that it neglects the difference of to which it is practical. A policy on strengthening the management in a company may seem to be practical for the economical benefit of the boss, but may at the same time impose severe constraints on labor freedom; and the decision to build up a factory in a small town may do some good to improve resident’s living standards, but inducing pollution and harming the environment as well. In short, so-called “practicality” is not universal to all people and all circumstances and before the conclusion is made, one often need to weigh the possible effect between different sides, and long-term over short-term.

In the final analysis, to definitely link value with practicality is not preferable, since it overlooks the potential value of things in aspects other than immediate utility, and neglects their virtue or impact in the long-run or to other groups. There is no single criterion of value in evaluating matters, and if it really turns out to be like that, the answer would be based on carefully weighing the value over all aspects it concerns which is too many for most things.

ps: 字数有点多,可能有废话:)

[ 本帖最后由 lmfred 于 2007-3-24 19:34 编辑 ]

lmfredUID: 183247

自己顶一下

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

The speaker asserts that practicality is the center of everything we do nowadays. This might be true in some aspects of our lives where practicality leads to a better life. However, I cannot agree with the statement because the speaker overstates the importance of （utility= practicality？）, and equals value to superficial usefulness which is unnecessarily true in most cases.

In the most general form, practicality means immediate effect and usefulness which is indeed one important goal of many man-made products and structures in our everyday life. They embody the idea of utilitarianism, ranging from the tower-like buildings that can hold a mass of people to the numerous cars running on highways everyday. The foundation of practicality can be traced to the human instinct of using tools. Up to millions of years ago, our ancestors already know how to get warm by fire from flints; and the whole history of industrial revolution seems to back up the argument that utility is the primary concern of human progress. Yet, even all of these are only one facet of human nature. If men only consider usefulness in designing houses and cars, why are there also a large amount of luxurious villas and limousines, and why are many people willing to spend most of their lives to be able to purchase one of them? That kind of things can hardly be said to be practical in the sense of the high ratio of cost to the usefulness, yet they are valuable in any sense. Sometimes people want those products only to show their dignity or wealth instead of using them. 这个在一段里正反论述看起来很晕的，是不是可以分开呢

On the other hand, there are two compelling arguments against taking practicality as the primary goal. One such argument concerns the human activity of doing research. First consider the research in the scientific arena, in which scarcely anyone knows the result of one project in advance. The most lucid example would be the Mars exploration program conducted by NASA under the U.S. government support. A large amount of scientists, engineers and consultants are involved into this project only to make a vehicle that is sent to Mars, a planet faraway from our globe. Yet the outcome has little effect upon average citizens, since no common people benefits from knowing about whether there is water and atmosphere on Mars at least in the recent century. But does that justify not carrying out one of the most reputable venture ever in human history? Regarding the human curiosity and the potential value to our descendants, perhaps no informed person would agree. In addition, the history also tells us that the usefulness of many great scientific discoveries was noticed a long time afterwards, such as the formulas of early quantum mechanics were adopted by Einstein several decades later. 例子很长，但是可以为论点服务的不多，删剪下

A second argument against the speaker’s point lies in the development of art and literature. Perhaps nobody would deny the significance of arts and literature to everyday lives and the progress of our whole society, yet many forms of art can hardly yield tangible utility. Arts are developed out of everyday life when people had spare time and were fed up by routine works. A few artists who are creative begin to embody their thoughts about human activities and emotions in pieces of art, in order to lift human spirit, save our minds from violence, war, and degeneracy. Their works touch the bottom of our hearts and induce resonances, such as Beethoven’s famous ninth symphony, and the Hemmingway’s book: The old man and the sea. These masterpieces stand up the test of the time and would not fade out in many centuries. However, they appear not to be obviously practical in terms of the economical effect they can bring to us; rather, they are invaluable as spiritual properties. 问题和上面的一样

The speaker’s assertion is also troubling in that it neglects the difference of to which it is practical. A policy on strengthening the management in a company may seem to be practical for the economical benefit of the boss, but may at the same time impose severe constraints on labor freedom; and the decision to build up a factory in a small town may do some good to improve resident’s living standards, but inducing pollution and harming the environment as well. In short, so-called “practicality” is not universal to all people and all circumstances and before the conclusion is made, one often need to weigh the possible effect between different sides, and long-term over short-term.这段论述的观点蛮深的，建议精简上面的两段，好好展开这段

In the final analysis, to definitely link value with practicality is not preferable, since it overlooks the potential value of things in aspects other than immediate utility, and neglects their virtue or impact in the long-run or to other groups. There is no single criterion of value in evaluating matters, and if it really turns out to be like that, the answer would be based on carefully weighing the value over all aspects it concerns which is too many for most things.不错的开端，继续加油亚

lmfredUID: 183247

谢谢ls指点！

The speaker asserts that practicality is the center of everything we do nowadays. This might be true in some aspects of our lives where practicality leads to a better life. However, I cannot agree with the statement because the speaker overstates the importance of practicality, and equals value to practical usefulness which is unnecessarily true in most cases.

In the most general form, practicality means immediate effect and usefulness which is indeed one important goal of many man-made products and structures in our everyday life. They embody the idea of utilitarianism, ranging from the tower-like buildings that can hold a mass of people to the numerous cars running on highways everyday. The foundation of practicality can be traced to the human instinct of using tools. Up to millions of years ago, our ancestors already know how to get warm by fire from flints; and the whole history of industrial revolution seems to back up the argument that utility is the primary concern of human progress.

However, even all of those are only one facet of human nature. If men only consider usefulness in designing houses and cars, why are there also a large amount of luxurious villas and limousines, and why are many people willing to spend most of their lives to be able to purchase one of them? That kind of things can hardly be said to be practical in the sense of the high ratio of cost to the usefulness, yet they are valuable in that those products are emblems of dignity or wealth instead of necessities.

Moreover, there are two compelling arguments against taking practicality as the primary goal. One such argument concerns the human activity of doing big scientific research. A lucid example would be the Mars exploration program conducted by NASA under the U.S. government support. A large amount of funding and talents are involved into this project only to launch a vehicle that is sent to Mars. Yet the outcome has little effect upon average citizens, since no common people benefits from knowing about whether there is water and atmosphere on Mars at least in the recent century. While such expensive projects are seemingly impractical, they serve for the larger goals of human, and their value could not be assessed upon practicality alone. Another argument lies in the development of arts. Artists embody their thoughts about human activities and emotions in intangible pieces of art, in order to lift human spirit, save our minds from violence and degeneracy. Their masterpieces stand up to the test of the time and would not fade out in centuries, such as Beethoven’s famous ninth symphony. On one hand, they appear to be not pragmatic in terms of the economical effect they can bring to us; on the other hand, they are invaluable as spiritual properties.

The speaker’s assertion is also troubling in that it neglects the difference of to which it is practical. A policy on strengthening management in a company may seem to be practical for the economical benefit of the boss, but may at the same time impose severe constraints on labor freedom; and the decision to build up a factory in a small town may do some good to improve resident’s living standards, but induce pollution and lead to irreparable environmental destruction as well. How often did we hear slogans like "improve the economic standard by all means" a decade ago in China! Even though high economic output is achieved, the fruit gained would amount to nothing if most of the benefit goes to a few officials while the grassroot is left in grievance. In short, so-called “practicality” is not universal to all people and all circumstances and before the conclusion is made, one often need to weigh the possible effect between different sides, and long-term over short-term.

In the final analysis, to definitely link value with practicality is not preferable, since it overlooks the potential value of things in aspects other than immediate utility, and neglects their virtue or impact in the long-run or to other groups. There is no single criterion of value in evaluating matters, and if it really turns out to be like that, the answer would be based on carefully weighing the value over all aspects it concerns which is too many for most things.