issue120 by beetle1986

beetle1986UID: 2431214

Issue120 by beetle1986

Facing so much new and complex things, some people advocate that looking back for an understanding of the past provides little guidance for living in the present. It is so absurd for the following reasons.

Inspecting into the history of science, we know that most advances in science depend on the former researches. Isaac Newton, the greatest physicist, once said: “If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” Without the contributions of Rene Descartes in mathematics and Galileo in physics, the apple which knocked Newton would be just an apple rather than Newton's Three Laws of Motion which constitute the foundation of classic physics and benefit human from that time on.

Inspecting into the history of humanities, we know what is right, and what should be avoided. We learn from World War that how atrocious it is, so we try to exclude it in the ages ahead. After the Rwanda massacre we reflect and think over how to prevent it happen again. And we learn from uncountable samples of crimes to learn their incentive, thus we will apply some solutions to avoid them to ensure the stability and prosperity of society.

Inspecting into the history of politics, we know which form of government is the most suitable for human race. By surveying thousands of human history, Carl Marx summarized the principle of productivity and production relations, and he predicted only if production relations fit productivity can promote the advance of society, or it would slow the step that society marched. With Marx’s study, our society could step forward on full speed.

Of course, we cannot according as the understanding of past completely, albeit those can guide us a lot. Old theorem could be corrected or repealed with new discovery. At the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists thought that physics had been nearly perfect and other physicists’ work would be just thinking over how to apply the physics. Then Einstein discovered photoemission, it could not be explained by classic theory. Despite the old theory, Einstein alleged bravely that it should be explained by a totally new theory, and the quantum theory came out. If Einstein confused with how to use classic theory to explain new phenomenon, just like other scientists, modern physics might be delay decades, subsequently I wouldn’t have a computer to write this issue.

To sum up, understanding of past can guide us a lot but not at all. When we facing a new and complex thing, we could compare it to a similar thing, then we can find out some direction. And find out differences between two things, think about why they are different, then we can find the way.

lovemxfUID: 2335206

Facing so much new and complex things, some people advocate that looking back for an understanding of the past provides little guidance for living in the present. It is so absurd for the following reasons.
Inspecting into the history of science, we know that most advances in science depend on the former researches. Isaac Newton, the greatest physicist, once said: “If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” Without the contributions of Rene Descartes in mathematics and Galileo in physics, the apple which knocked Newton would be just an apple rather than Newton's Three Laws of Motion which constitute the foundation of classic physics and benefit human from that time on.
Inspecting into the history of humanities, we know what is right, (建议去掉逗号因为and后边不是分句是有一个从句)and what should be avoided. We learn from World War that how atrocious it is, so we try to exclude it in the ages ahead. After the Rwanda massacre we reflect and think over how to prevent it happen again. And we learn from uncountable samples of crimes to learn their incentive, thus we will(could 会好一些) apply some solutions to avoid(换成杜绝是不是更好一些) them to ensure the stability and prosperity of society.
Inspecting into the history of politics, we know which form of government is the most suitable for human race(这个是人族或人种的意思,最好换一个人类的说法:mankind). By surveying thousands of human history, Carl Marx summarized the principle of productivity and production relations, and he predicted only if production relations fit productivity can promote the advance of society, or it would slow the step that society marched. With Marx’s study, our society could step forward on full speed. (我认为这个例子是有争议的,在西方并不是所有的人都认为马克斯有贡献,最好换一个)
Of course, we cannot according as the understanding of past completely, albeit those can guide us a lot. Old theorem could be corrected or repealed with new discovery. At the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists thought that physics had been nearly perfect and other physicists’ work would be just thinking over how to apply the physics. Then Einstein discovered photoemission, it could not be explained by classic theory. Despite the old theory, Einstein alleged bravely that it should be explained by a totally new theory, and the quantum theory came out. If Einstein confused(conform) with how to use classic theory to explain new phenomenon, just like other scientists, modern physics might be delay decades, subsequently I wouldn’t(would not) have a computer to write this issue.(这句话不是很贴切,我查了爱因斯坦的简历并没有对计算机有贡献,他的贡献在于相对论和原子弹方面,计算机好像与他没有任何关系)
To sum up, understanding of (the) past can guide us a lot but not at all. When we facing a new and complex thing, we could compare it to a similar thing(compare to 是比喻的意思应该为compare with), then we can find out some direction. And find out differences between two things, think about why they are different, then we can find the way.( 我认为这么该好一些When we face a new and complex thing, we could compare it with some similar things. Then we can find out some directions and differences between two things, think about why they are different, and then we can choose the way.)

你对题目的把握非常到位,没有任何问题,语言错误也很少,只不过马克思的例子还是需要在想想.

[ 本帖最后由 lovemxf 于 2007-12-29 12:48 编辑 ]