高英 one against many 【心血
The-One-Against-the-Many-原文+译文教学内容
T h e-O n e-A g a i n s t-t h e-M a n y-原文+译文The One against the Many课文原文+译文In an epoch dominated by the aspirations of new states for national development, it is instructive to recall that the United States itself began as an underdeveloped country.Every country, of course, has its distinctive development problems and must solve them according to its own traditions, capacities, and values. The American experience was unique in a number of ways. The country was blessed by notable advantages—above all, by the fact that population and resources was obviously not the only factor in American development. Had that been so, the Indians, for whom the ratio was even more favorable, would have developed the country long before the first settlers arrived from over the seas. What mattered equally was the spirit in which these settlers approached the economic and social challenges offered by the environment. Several elements seemed fundamental to the philosophy which facilitated the rapid social and economic development of the American continent.One factor was the deep faith in education. The belief that investment in people is the most essential way for a society to devote its resources existed from the earliest days of the American colonies. It arose originally from a philosophical rather than an economic commitment—from a faith in the dignity of man and from the resulting belief that it is the responsibility of society to offer man the opportunity to develop his highest potentialities. But, at the same time, it also helped produce the conditions essential to successful modernization.Modern industrial society must be above all a literate society. Economic historians attribute two-third of the growth in American output over the centuries of American development to increases on productivity. And increases in productivity, of course, come directly from the size of national investment in education and in research. J. K. Galbraith had rightly observed that “a dollar or a rupee invested in the intellectual improvement of human beings will regularly bring a greater increase in national income than a dollar or a rupee devoted to railways, dams, machine tools, or other tangible capital goods.” These words accurately report the American national experience.Another factor in the process of American development has been the commitment to self-government and representative institutions. We have found no better way than democracy to fulfill man’s talents and release his energies. A related factor had been the conviction of the importance of personal freedom and personal initiative—the feeling that the individual is the source of creativity. Another has been the understanding of the role of cooperative activity, public as well as voluntary.But fundamental to all of these, and perhaps the single most important explanation of the comparative speed of American development, had been the national rejection of dogmatic preconceptions about the nature of the social and economic order. America has had the good fortune not to be an ideological society.By ideology I mean a body of systematic and rigid dogma by which people seek to understand the world—and to preserve or transform in. the conflict between ideology and empiricism has, of course, been old in human history. In the record ofthis conflict, ideology has attracted some of the strongest intelligences mankind has produced—those whom Sir Isaiah Berlin, termed the “hedgehogs”, who knows one big thing, as against the “foxes”, who know many small things.Nor can one suggest that Americans have been consistently immune to the ideological temptation—to the temptation, that is, to define national goals in an ordered, comprehensive, and permanent way. After all, the American mind was conditioned by one of the noblest and most formidable structures of analysis ever devised, Calvinist theology, and any intellect so shaped was bound to have certain vulnerability to secular ideology ever after. There have been hedgehogs throughout American history who have attempted to endow America with an all-inclusive creed, to translate Americanism into a set of binding propositions, and to construe the national tradition in terms of one or another ultimate law.Yet most of the time Americans have foxily mistrusted abstract rationalism and rigid a priori doctrine. Our national faith has been not in propositions but in processes. In its finest hours, the Unite States has, so to speak, risen above ideology. It has not permitted dogma to falsify reality, imprison experience, or narrow the spectrum of choice. This skepticism about ideology has been a primary source of the social inventiveness which has marked so much of development. The most vital American social thought has been empirical, practical, pragmatic. America, in consequence, has been at its most characteristic a nation of innovation and experiment.Pragmatism is no more wholly devoid of abstractions than ideology is wholly devoid of experience. The dividing line comes when abstractions and experience collide and one must give way to the other. At this point the pragmatist rejects abstractions and, the ideologist rejects experience. The early history of the republic illustrates the difference. The American Revolution was a pragmatic effort conducted in terms of certain general values. The colonists fought for independence in terms of British ideals of civil freedom and representative government; they rebelled against British rule essentially for British reasons. The ideals of American independence found expression in the classical documents which accompanied the birth of the nation: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.But it is important here to insist on the distinction between ideals and ideology. Ideals refer to the long-run goals of a nation and the spirit in which these goals are pursued. Ideology is something different, more systematic, more detailed, more comprehensive, more dogmatic. The case of one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, emphasizes the distinction. Jefferson was an expounder both of ideals and of ideology. As an expounder of ideals, he remains a vivid and fertile figure—alive, not only for Americans but, I believe, for all those interested in human dignity and human liberty. As an ideologist, however, Jefferson is today remote—a figure not of present concern but of historical curiosity. As an ideologist, he believe, for example, that agriculture was the only basis of a good society; that the small freehold system was the only foundation for freedom; that the honest and virtuous cultivator was the only reliable citizen for a democratic state; that an economy based on agriculture was self-regulating and, therefore, required a minimum of government; that that government was best which governed least; and that the great enemies of a free statewere, on the one hand, urbanization, industry, banking, a landless working class, and on the other hand, a strong national government with power to give direction to national development. This was Jefferson’s ideology, and had the United States responded to it, we would be today a feeble and impotent nation. By responding to Jefferson’s ideals rather than to his ideology, the United States has become a strong modern state.Fortunately, Jefferson himself preferred his ideals to his ideology. In case of conflict he chose what helped people rather than what conformed to principle. Indeed, the whole ideological enterprise contradicted Jefferson’s temper, which was basically flexible and experimental. The true Jefferson is not the ideological Jefferson but the Jefferson who said that one generation could not commit the next to its view of public policy or human destiny.What is wrong with faith in ideology? The trouble is this. An ideology is not a picture of actuality; it is a model derived from actuality, a model designed to isolate certain salient features of actuality which the model builder, the ideologist, regards as of crucial importance. An ideology, in other words, is an abstraction from reality. There is nothing wrong with abstraction or models per se. In fact, we could not conduct discourse without them. There is nothing wrong with them—so long, that is, as people remember they are only models. The ideological fallacy is to forger that ideology is an abstraction from reality and to regard it as reality itself.The besetting sin of the ideologist, in short, is to confuse his own tidy models with the vast, turbulent, unpredictable, and untidy reality which is the stuff of human experience. And this confusion has at least two bad results—it commits those who believe in ideology to a fatalistic view of history, and it misleads them about concrete choices of public policy.Consider for a moment the ideologist’s view of history. The ideologist contends that the mysteries of history can be understood in terms of a clear-cut, absolute, social creed which explains the past and forecasts the future. Ideology thus presupposes a closed universe whose history is determined, whose principles are fixed, whose values and objectives are deducible from a central body of social dogma and often whose central dogma is confided to the custody of an infallible priesthood. In the old philosophic debates between the one and the many, the ideologist stands with the one. It is his belief that the world as a whole can be understood from a single viewpoint that everything in the abundant and streaming life of man is reducible to a single abstract system of interpretation.The American tradition has found this view of human history repugnant and false. This tradition sees the world as many, not as one. These empirical instincts, the preference for fact over logic, for deed over dogma, have found their most brilliant expression in the writings of William James and in the approach to philosophical problems which James called “radical empiricism”. Aga inst the belief in the all-encompassing power of a single explanation, against the commitment to the absolutism of ideology, against the notion that all answers to political and social problems can be found in the back of some sacred book, against the deterministic interpretation of history, against the closed universe, James stood for what he calledthe unfinished universe—a universe marked by growth, variety, ambiguity, mystery, and contingency—a universe where free men may find partial truths, but where no mortal man will ever get an absolute grip on Absolute Truth, a universe where social progress depends not on capitulation to a single, all-consuming body of doctrine, but on the unforced intercourse of unconstrained minds.Thus ideology and pragmatism differ radically in their views of history. They differ just as radically in their approach to issues of public policy. The ideologist, by mistaking models for reality, always misleads as to the possibilities and consequences of public decision. The history of the twentieth century is a record of the manifold ways in which humanity has been betrayed by ideology.Let us take an example from contemporary history. It is evident now, for example, that the choice between private and public means, that choice which has obsessed so much recent political and economic discussion in underdeveloped countries, is not a matter of religious principle. It is not a moral issue to be decided on absolutist grounds, either by those on the right who regard the use of public means as wicked and sinful, or by those on the left who regard the use of private means wicked and sinful. It is simply a practical question as to which means can best achieve the desired end. It is a problem to be answered not by theology but by experience and experiment. Indeed, I would suggest that we might well banish some overloaded words from intellectual discourse. They belong to the vocabulary of demagoguery, not to the vocabulary of analysis.So, with the invention of the mixed society, pragmatism has triumphed over absolutism. As a consequence, the world is coming to understand that the mixed economy offered the instrumentalities through which one can unite social control with individual freedom. But ideology is a drug; no matter how much it is exposed by experience, the craving for it still persists. That craving will, no doubt, always persists, so long as there is human hunger for an all-embracing, all-explanatory system, so long indeed as political philosophy is shaped by the compulsion to return to the womb.The oldest philosophical problem, we have noted, is the relationship between the one and the one and the many. Surely the basic conflict of our times is precisely the conflict between those who would reduce the world to one and those who see the world as many—between those who believe that the world is evolving in a single direction, along a single predestined line, toward a single predestined conclusion, and those who think that humanity in the future, as in the past, will continue to evolve in divers directions, toward diverse conclusions, according to the diverse traditions, values, and purposes of divers peoples. It is a choice, in short, between dogmatism and pragmatism, between the theological society and the experimental society.Ideologists are afraid of the free flow of ideas, even of deviant ideas within their own ideology. They are convinced they have a monopoly on the Truth. Therefore they always feel that they are only saving the world when they slaughter the heretics. Their objective remains that of making the world over in the image of their dogmatic ideology. The goal is a monolithic world, organized on the principle of infallibility—but the only certainty in an absolute system is the certainty of absolute abuse.The goal of free men is quite different. Free men know many truths, but the doubt whether any mortal man knows the Truth. Their religious and their intellectual heritage join in leading them to suspect fellow men who lay claim to infallibility. They believe that there is no greater delusion than for man to mistake himself for God. They accept the limitations of the human intellect and the infirmity of the human spirit. The distinctive human triumph, in their judgment, lies in the capacity to understand the frailty of human striving but to strive nonetheless.。
大学高级英语第一册第13课译文及课后答案
大学高级英语第一册第13课译文及课后答案大不列颠望洋兴叹安德鲁.尼尔英国商船队的大名如今已很少见诸报纸上的大字标题，它已几乎被人们遗忘。
然而，海运业今天依然是英国经济的主要命脉，我国的内外贸易商品99％要靠海洋运输——其中一大半是通过英国商船运输。
海运业在英国占有举足轻重的地位，是个兴旺发达的行业，它一年可赚取10亿多英镑的外汇。
如果没有我们的商业船队，那么，就算有北海的石油，我国的收支还会是永远的赤字。
然而，如今英国的这一至关重要的产业正面临着空前严重的危机。
几乎在世界上所有的主要航海线上，英国商业船队都有被强劲的外国竞争对手挤开的危险。
威胁主要来自两个方面：其一是苏联及东欧集团各国，它们正大力扩充自己的商业船队，并通过大幅度压低价格同西方海运公司竞争的手段挤进国际海运界；其二是发展中国家的商船队，它们正努力要从对英国利害攸关的几条航线——欧洲至亚洲、亚洲至远东等航线上夺走大部分生意。
今天，大不列颠的商业船队再也不是海上霸王了：我们在世界商船总量中所占的比重已由原来的40％降到现在的大约8％。
不过，就商业船只的总吨位而言，英国商业船队仍保持着继续扩展的势态，其装载总量比起1914年已增加2／3以上。
在我国的传统产业258 中，几乎还只有海运业至今依然保持着常盛不衰的记录。
与英国其他各行业情形不同的是，海运业的船主们花了大本钱投资。
60年代初期，英国的海运公司利用政府资助和减税等有利条件大发其财。
在1966至1976年间，英国海运业的投资率每天竟超过100万英镑。
到70年代初，几乎每个星期就有一艘新的英国船只在世界的某个港口下水。
结果是英国拥有了一支非常现代化的商业船队：我们的船只的平均年龄只有6年，而且一半以上的船只投入使用还不到五年。
在目前这一阶段，英国海运业的经营者们在投资建造最先进的船只这方面是走在了其他国家的竞争对手的前头。
英国商船队得以称雄的另一个重要因素是英国人100多年前首创的一种组织：“商船协会”19世纪中叶，帆船与汽船之间的竞争愈演愈烈，已到了你死我活的程度，由竞争所带来的降价使得许多历史悠久的船运公司纷纷破产。
The one against the many
• The only certainty in an absolute system is the certainty of absolute abuse. The only thing that is sure of a despotic system is the unrestricted exercise of power (which leads to corruption or tyranny) the repetition of “certainty” and “absolute” and the balance structure lend force to the idea
• Their objective remains that of making the world over in the image of their dogmatic ideology. They aim at transforming the world in accordance with their ideology. The goal is a monolithic world, organized on the principle of infallibility… monolithic world: a world identified in all parts of the principle of infallibility: dogmatic ideology
lesson the one against the many
Lesson5 The One Against The Many1在这个新生国家渴望发展的时代，回眸美国从不发达国家开始的发展历程是很有教益的。
2当然，每个国家都有各自的发展问题而且必须根据其各自的传统、能力和价值解决它们。
美国的经验在许多方面都是独特的。
这个国家有着得天独厚的优势——主要是人口相对稀少而资源十分丰富。
但是很明显，人口和资源之间有利的比例不是促进美国发展的唯一因素。
如果真是这样的话，在人口与资源比例上更有优势的印第安人，在海外殖民者到来以前，早就应该把国家发展起来了。
同样重要的还有这些殖民者在面临各种经济和社会环境的挑战的精神。
几个基本思想要素对于促进美洲大陆社会和经济迅速发展起到了至关重要的作用。
3其中一个思想因素就是对教育的深信不疑。
对人员的投入是社会资源分配的最基本方式，这信念年在美国殖民地最早期就存在。
它源于对思想原则的信仰，而不是出于对经济利益的追求；它源于对人的尊严的笃信以及由此而产生的信念，即给人们提供机会去发展其最大的潜能是社会的责任。
但与此同时，它帮助美国奠定了走向现代化的基础。
4现代化的工业社会必须首先是知识的社会。
经济历史学家把美国两个世纪发展期间2/3的经济增长归功于生产率的提高。
当然，这种生产率的提高直接来源于国家对教育和研究的投入。
JK高博瑞曾经恰当地指出：“在智力提高上提高的每一美元或卢比所带来的国家收入，都大于将其投入到铁路、水坝、机器工具，或其他有形生产资料所能带来的国家收入。
”这句话准确地叙述了美国的经验。
5促进美国发展进程的另一个思想因素是对自治和代议制的追求。
我们发现民主是使人的才智得到充分施展、人的能量得以充分发挥的最好方式。
民主思想一方面确信人的自由的重要性和创新来自个人；另一方面是懂得合作的作用，这种合作包括义务的和自发的两种。
6但所有因素当中最基本的，或许是对美国发展速度最重要的一个就是美国拒绝关于社会本质和经济规律的教条式的偏见。
the one against the many
In an epoch dominated by the aspirations of new states for national development, it is instructive to recall that the UnitedStates itself began as an underdeveloped country.Every country, of course, has its distinctive development problems and must solve them according to its own traditions, capacities, and values. The Americanexperience was unique in a number of ways. The country was blessed by notable advantages—above all, by the fact that population and resources was obviously not the only factor in American development. Had that been so, the Indians, for whom the ratio was even more favorable, would have developed the country long before the first settlers arrived from over the seas. What mattered equally was the spirit in which these settlers approached the economic and social challenges offered by the environment. Several elements seemed fundamental to the philosophy which facilitated the rapid social and economic development of the American continent.One factor was the deep faith in education. The belief that investment in people is the most essential way for a society to devote its resources existed from the earliest days of the American colonies. It arose originally from a philosophical rather than an economic commitment—from a faith in the dignity of man and from the resulting belief that it is the responsibility of society to offer man the opportunity to develop his highest potentialities. But, at the same time, it also helped produce the conditions essential to successful modernization.Modern industrial society must be above all a literate society. Economic historians attribute two-third of the growth in American output over the centuries of Americandevelopment to increases on productivity. And increases in productivity, of course, come directly from the size of national investment in education and in research. J. K. Galbraith had rightly observed that “a dollar or a rupee invested in the intellectual improvement of human beings will regularly bring a greater increase in national income than a dollar or a rupee devoted to railways, dams, machine tools, or other tangible capital goods.”T hese words accurately report the American national experience.Another factor in the process of American development has been the commitment to self-government and representative institutions. We have found no better way than democracy to fulfill man’s talents and release his energies. A related factor had been the conviction of the importance of personal freedom and personal initiative—the feeling that the individual is the source of creativity. Another has been the understanding of the role of cooperative activity, public as well as voluntary.But fundamental to all of these, and perhaps the single most important explanation of the comparative speed of American development, had been the national rejection of dogmatic preconceptions about the nature of the social and economic order. America has had the good fortune not to be an ideological society.By ideology I mean a body of systematic and rigid dogma by which people seek to understand the world—and to preserve or transform in. the conflict between ideology and empiricism has, of course, been old in human history. In the record of this conflict, ideology has attracted some of the strongest intelligences mankind has produced—those whom Sir Isaiah Berlin, termed the “hedgehogs”, who knows one big thing, as against the “foxes”, who know many small things.Nor can one suggest that Americans have been consistently immune to the ideological temptation—to the temptation, that is, to define national goals in an ordered, comprehensive, and permanent way. After all, the American mind was conditioned by one of the noblest and most formidable structures of analysis ever devised, Calvinist theology, and any intellect soshaped was bound to have certain vulnerability to secular ideology ever after. There have been hedgehogs throughout American history who have attempted to endow America with an all-inclusive creed, to translate Americanism into a set of binding propositions, and to construe the national tradition in terms of one or another ultimate law.Yet most of the time Americans have foxily mistrusted abstract rationalism and rigid a priori doctrine. Our national faith has been not in propositions but in processes. In its finest hours, the Unite States has, so to speak, risen above ideology. It has not permitted dogma to falsify reality, imprison experience, or narrow the spectrum of choice. This skepticism about ideology has been a primary source of the social inventiveness which has marked so much of development. The most vital American social thought has been empirical, practical, pragmatic. America, in consequence, has been at its most characteristic a nation of innovation and experiment. Pragmatism is no more wholly devoid of abstractions than ideology is wholly devoid of experience. The dividing line comes when abstractions and experience collide and one must give way to the other. At this point the pragmatist rejects abstractions and, the ideologist rejects experience. The early history of the republic illustrates the difference. The American Revolution was a pragmatic effort conducted in terms of certain general values. The colonists fought for independence in terms of British ideals of civil freedom and representative government; they rebelled against British rule essentially for British reasons. The ideals of American independence found expression in the classical documents which accompanied the birth of the nation: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.But it is important here to insist on the distinction between ideals and ideology. Ideals refer to the long-run goals of a nation and the spirit in which these goals are pursued. Ideology is something different, more systematic, more detailed, more comprehensive, more dogmatic. The case of one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, emphasizes the distinction. Jefferson was an expounder both of ideals and of ideology. As an expounder of ideals, he remains a vivid and fertile figure—alive, not only for Americans but, Ibelieve, for all those interested in human dignity and human liberty. As an ideologist, however, Jefferson is today remote—a figure not of present concern but of historical curiosity. As an ideologist, he believe, for example, that agriculture was the only basis of a good society; that the small freehold system was the only foundation for freedom; that the honest and virtuous cultivator was the only reliable citizen for a democratic state; that an economy based on agriculture was self-regulating and, therefore, required a minimum of government; that that government was best which governed least; and that the great enemies of a free state were, on the one hand, urbanization, industry, banking, a landless working class, and on the other hand, a strong national government with power to give direction to national development. This was Jefferson’s ideology, and had the United States responded to it, we would be today a feeble and impotent nation. By responding to Jefferson’s ideals rather than to his ideology, the United States has become a strong modern state.Fortunately, Jefferson himself preferred his ideals to his ideology. In case of conflict he chose what helped people rather than what conformed to principle. Indeed, the whole ideological enterprise contradicted Jefferson’s temper, which was basically flexible and experimental. The true Jefferson is not the ideological Jefferson but the Jefferson who said that one generation could not commit the next to its view of public policy or human destiny.What is wrong with faith in ideology? The trouble is this. An ideology is not a picture of actuality; it is a model derived from actuality, a model designed to isolate certain salient features ofactuality which the model builder, the ideologist, regards as of crucial importance. An ideology, in other words, is an abstraction from reality. There is nothing wrong with abstraction or models per se. In fact, we could not conduct discourse without them. There is nothing wrong with them—so long, that is, as people remember they are only models. The ideological fallacy is to forger that ideology is an abstraction from reality and to regard it as reality itself.The besetting sin of the ideologist, in short, is to confuse his own tidy models with the vast, turbulent, unpredictable, and untidy reality which is the stuff of human experience. And this confusion has at least two bad results—it commits those who believe in ideology to a fatalistic view of history, and it misleads them about concrete choices of public policy.Consider for a moment the ideologist’s view of history. The ideologist contends that the mysteries of history can be understood in terms of a clear-cut, absolute, social creed which explains the past and forecasts the future. Ideology thus presupposes a closed universe whose history is determined, whose principles are fixed, whose values and objectives are deducible from a central body of social dogma and often whose central dogma is confided to the custody of an infallible priesthood.In the old philosophic debates between the one and the many, the ideologist stands with the one. It is his belief that the world as a whole can be understood from a single viewpoint that everything in the abundant and streaming life of man is reduci ble to a single abstract system of interpretation.The American tradition has found this view of human history repugnant and false. This tradition sees the world as many, not as one. These empirical instincts, the preference for fact over logic, for deed over dogma, have found their most brilliant expression in the writings of William James and in the approach to philosophical problems which James called “radical empiricism”. Against the belief in the all-encompassing power of a single explanation, against the commitment to the absolutism of ideology, against the notion that all answers to political and social problems can be found in the back of some sacred book, against the deterministic interpretation of history, against the closed universe, James stood for what he called the unfinished universe—a universe marked by growth, variety, ambiguity, mystery, and contingency—a universe where free men may find partial truths, but where no mortal man will ever get an absolute grip on Absolute Truth, a universe where social progress depends not on capitulation to a single, all-consuming body of doctrine, but on the uncoerced intercourse of unconstrained minds.Thus ideology and pragmatism differ radically in their views of history. They differ just as radically in their approach to issues of public policy. The ideologist, by mistaking models for reality, always misleads as to the possibilities and consequences of public decision. The history of the twentieth century is a record of the manifold ways in which humanity has been betrayed by ideology.Let us take an example from contemporary history. It is evident now, for example, that the choice between private and public means, that choice which has obsessed so much recent political and economic discussion in underdeveloped countries, is not a matter of religious principle. It is not a moralissue to be decided on absolutist grounds, either by those on the right who regard the use of public means as wicked and sinful, or by those on the left who regard the use of private means wicked and sinful. It is simply a practical question as to which means can best achieve the desired end. It is a problem to be answered not by theology but by experience and experiment. Indeed, I would suggest that we might well banish some overloaded words from intellectual discourse. They belong to the vocabulary of demagoguery, not to the vocabulary of analysis.So, with the invention of the mixed society, pragmatism has triumphed over absolutism. As aconsequence, the world is coming to understand that the mixed economy offered the instrumentalities through which one can unite social control with individual freedom. But ideology is a drug; no matter how much it is exposed by experience, the craving for it still persists. That craving will, no doubt, always persists, so long as there is human hunger for an all-embracing, all-explanatory system, so long indeed as political philosophy is shaped by the compulsion to return to the womb.The oldest philosophical problem, we have noted, is the relationship between the one and the one and the many. Surely the basic conflict of our times is precisely the conflict between those who would reduce the world to one and those who see the world as many—between those who believe that the world is evolving in a single direction, along a single predestined line, toward a single predestined conclusion, and those who think that humanity in the future, as in the past, will continue to evolve in divers directions, toward diverse conclusions, according to the diverse traditions, values, and purposes of divers peoples. It is a choice, in short, between dogmatism and pragmatism, between the theological society and the experimental society.Ideologists are afraid of the free flow of ideas, even of deviant ideas within their own ideology. They are convinced they have a monopoly on the Truth. Therefore they always feel that they are only saving the world when they slaughter the heretics. Their objective remains that of making the world over in the image of their dogmatic ideology. The goal is a monolithic world, organized on the principle of infallibility—but the only certainty in an absolute system is the certainty of absolute abuse.The goal of free men is quite different. Free men know many truths, but the doubt whether any mortal man knows the Truth. Their religious and their intellectual heritage join in leading them to suspect fellow men who lay claim to infallibility. They believe that there is no greater delusion than for man to mistake himself for God. They accept the limitations of the human intellect and the infirmity of the human spirit. The distinctive human triumph, in their judgment, lies in the capacity to understand the frailty of human striving but to strive nonetheless.。
《高级英语(第一册)》课后翻译习题及答案
Lesson 11) Little donkeys thread their way among the throngs of people.little donkeys went in and out among the people and from one side to another2) Then as you penetrate deeper into the bazaar, the noise of the entrance fades away, and you come to the muted cloth-market.Then as you pass through a big crowd to go deeper into the market, the noise of the entrance gradually disappear, and you come to the much quieter cloth-market.3) they narrow down their choice and begin the really serious business of beating the price downthey drop some of items that they don't really want and begin to bargain seriously for a low price.4) he will price the item high, and yield little in the bargainingHe will ask for a high price for the item and refuse to cut down the price by any significant amount.5) As you approach it, a tinkling and banging and clashing begins to impinge on your earAs you get near it, a variety of sounds begin to strike your ear.X．1)一条蜿蜒的小路淹没在树荫深处A zig-zag path loses itself in the shadowy distance of the woods.2)集市上有许多小摊子，出售的货物应有尽有At the bazaar there are many stalls where goods of every conceivable kind are sold.3) 我真不知道到底是什么事让他如此生气。
The One Against the Many (2)
Translation
1. The American experience was unique in a number of ways. (Para.2) 美国的经验在许多方面都是独特的。 2. The country was blessed by notable advantages … to available resources. (Para.2) 这个国家有着得天独厚的优势---- 主要是人 口相对稀少而资源十分丰富。
Background Information
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. one of America’s most influential historians former Harvard professor special assistant to President Kennedy the Pulitzer Prize winner for History in 1946 and for Biography in 1996 the National Book Award winner in 1966 and 1979
Lesson 5
The One Against the Many
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
Pre-reading Question: Do you know the reasons for the rapid development of the U.S.A after the World War II ?
1733 The last of the thirteen English colonies, Georgia, was founded. 1775 The fire of Lexington, the prelude of the great War of Independence. 1776 The Declaration of Independence was signed and issued. 1783 A peace negotiation was held and the final treaty was signed. The War of Independence ended. 1789 The Federal Government was established. George Washington was elected the first president of the United States.
高级英语第一册 第十课 词汇、课后练习及答案
第十课 The Trial that Rocked the World目录一、词汇(V ocabulary)--------------------------------------------------------------------------1二、课文解释------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5三、补充练习及答案--------------------------------------------------------------------------22一、词汇(Vocabulary)sweltering ( adj.): that swelters or suffers from the heat；very hot；sultry热得发昏的；酷热----------------------------------------------------------------------------------counsel ( n.): a lawyer or group of lawyers giving advice about legal matters and representing clients in court辩护律师；法律顾问；辩护人----------------------------------------------------------------------------------silver-tongued ( adj.): eloquent；persuasive雄辩的；口才流利的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------orator ( n.): a skilled，eloquent public speaker雄辩家----------------------------------------------------------------------------------jury ( n.): a group of people sworn to hear the evidence and inquire into the facts in a law case，and to give decision in accordance with their findings陪审团----------------------------------------------------------------------------------erupt ( v．): burst forth or out，as from some restraint进发；爆发；喷出----------------------------------------------------------------------------------clash ( n.): a sharp disagreement；conflict抵触；冲突；意见不一致；对立----------------------------------------------------------------------------------fundamentalism ( n.): religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible and regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals原教旨主义(相信《圣经》所记载的传统的基督教信仰，反对较为近代的教义)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------legislature ( n.): a body of persons given the responsibility and power to make laws for a country or state(esp. the lawmaking body of a state，corresponding to the U．S．Congress)立法机构(尤指美国的州议会)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------prohibit ( v．): refuse to permit；forbid by law or by an order禁止；不准----------------------------------------------------------------------------------legality ( n.) : quality，condition，or instance of being legal or lawful；conformity with the law 合法性----------------------------------------------------------------------------------indict ( v．) : accuse；charge with the commission of a cime; esp. make formal accusation against on the basis of positive legal evidence usually said of the action of a grand jury控告，控诉；指控，告发，对……起诉----------------------------------------------------------------------------------prosecute (v．) : institute legal proceedings against，or conduct criminal proceedings in court against对……起诉----------------------------------------------------------------------------------festoon ( v．) : adorn or hang with festoons饰以(或悬挂)花彩，结彩于----------------------------------------------------------------------------------sprout (v．) : grow or develop rapidly迅速生长，迅速发展----------------------------------------------------------------------------------rickety ( adj.) : 1iable to fall or break down because weak；shaky易倒的；易垮的；不结实的；不稳固的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------evangelist ( n.) : anyone who evangelizes(esp. a traveling preacher or a revivalist)福音传教士(尤指巡回说教者或信仰复兴者)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------exhort ( v．) : urge earnestly by advice，warning，etc．规劝，劝告，劝戒----------------------------------------------------------------------------------infidel ( n.) : a person who holds no religious belief无宗教信仰者，不信宗教者----------------------------------------------------------------------------------florid ( adj. ) : flushed with red or pink(said of the complexion)(脸色)红润的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------paunchy ( adj. ) : [derog. or humor](esp. of a man)having a fat stomach[贬或幽](尤指男性)大腹便便的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------attorney ( n.) : any person legally empowered to act as agent for. or in behalf of，another(esp. a lawyer) (被当事人授权的法律事务中的)代理人----------------------------------------------------------------------------------shrewd ( adj.) : keen—witted，clever，astute or sharp in practical affairs机敏的；精明的；伶俐的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------magnetic ( adj.) : powerfully attractive(said of a person，personality，etc．)有吸引力的；有魅力的(指人或个性等)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------steep ( v．) : immense，saturate，absorb，or imbue(esp. used as steeped锄：thoroughly filled or familiar with)沉浸；埋头于(尤用作steeped in充满着；沉湎于；精通)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------agnostic ( n.) : a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause，or anything beyond material phenomena；atheist不可知论者----------------------------------------------------------------------------------growl (v．) : complain in an angry or surly manner牢骚满腹地说----------------------------------------------------------------------------------spar ( v. ) : wrangle or dispute争论；争吵----------------------------------------------------------------------------------drawl ( v．) : speak slowly，prolonging the vowels慢慢吞吞地说----------------------------------------------------------------------------------bigotry ( n.) : the behavior，attitude，or beliefs of a bigot：intolerance；prejudice偏执的行为(或态度、信念等)；偏执；顽固；偏见----------------------------------------------------------------------------------rampant ( adj. ) : spreading unchecked；widespread蔓延的；猖獗的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------faggot ( n.) : a bundle of sticks，twigs，or branches(esp. for use as fuel)柴捆；柴把----------------------------------------------------------------------------------contaminate ( v．) : make impure，infected，corrupt，etc．使感染，传染，毒害----------------------------------------------------------------------------------mammal ( n.) : any of a large class of warm—blooded. usually hairy vertebrates whose off springs are fed with milk secreted by female mammary glands哺乳动物----------------------------------------------------------------------------------snort ( v．) : wave，shake. or exhibit in a menacing, challenging，or exultant way(威胁地、挑战似地、狂喜地)挥舞----------------------------------------------------------------------------------denounce ( v．) : condemn strongly as evil谴责，指责，痛斥----------------------------------------------------------------------------------sonorous ( adj. ) : having a powerful，impressive sound(声音)响亮的；洪亮的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------reconcile ( adj. ) : settle(a quarrel，etc．)or compose(a difference，etc．)调解；调和；使一致；使相符----------------------------------------------------------------------------------divine ( adj. ) : given or inspired by God；holy；sacred神授的，天赐的；神圣的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------fervour ( n.) : great warmth of emotion；ardor；zeal；passion热烈；热情，热心，热诚----------------------------------------------------------------------------------arena ( n.) : any sphere of struggle or conflict竞争场所；活动场所----------------------------------------------------------------------------------prairie ( n.) : a large area of level or slightly rolling grassland大草原----------------------------------------------------------------------------------scorch (v．) : char，discolor，or damage the surface of sth. by superficial burning；burn；make a caustic attack on；assail scathingly；excoriate烧焦；烤焦；挖苦；严厉指责(或批评)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------pop ( v．) : [colloq．]arise；happen or arrive unexpectedly[口]突然发生，突然出现，突然来到----------------------------------------------------------------------------------duel ( n.) : any contest or encounter suggesting such a fight，usually between two persons(常指两人间的)争斗，冲突，斗争----------------------------------------------------------------------------------hush ( n.) : absence of noise；quiet；silence寂静，平静，安静；默不作声，沉默----------------------------------------------------------------------------------adjourn ( v. ) : close a session or meeting for the day or for a time休会，闭会；延期----------------------------------------------------------------------------------swarm (v．) : be filled or crowded；teem(with)充满，被挤满(常与with连用)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------hawker ( n.) : a person who hawks goods in the street；peddle；huckster(沿街叫卖的)小贩----------------------------------------------------------------------------------entrepreneur ( n.) : [Fr．]a person who organizes and manages a business undertaking．assumingthe risk for the sake of the profit[法语]企业家----------------------------------------------------------------------------------ape ( n.) : any of a family(Pongidae)of large，tailless monkeys that can stand and walk in an almost erect position猿----------------------------------------------------------------------------------ponder ( v．) : weigh mentally；think deeply about；consider carefully默想；深思；考虑----------------------------------------------------------------------------------cower ( v．) : shrink and tremble，as from someone's anger，threats，or blow(因别人发怒、威胁或打击而)畏缩；发抖，哆嗦----------------------------------------------------------------------------------sulphurous ( adj.) : violently emotional；heated；fiery异常激动的；激烈的；暴怒的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------dispatch ( n.) : a news story sent to a newspaper，radio station，etc．，as by a special reporter or news agency(特派记者或新闻社发给报社、电台的)(新闻)电讯，电文，通讯----------------------------------------------------------------------------------yokel ( n.) : [a contemptuous term]a person living in a rural area；rustic；country bumpkin[贬]乡巴佬，土包子----------------------------------------------------------------------------------perch ( v．) : alight or rest on or as on a perch栖息；停歇；坐在高处----------------------------------------------------------------------------------gawk ( v．) : stare like a gawk，in a stupid way(像呆子般)呆呆地盯着，呆视----------------------------------------------------------------------------------wily ( adj.) : full of wiles；crafty；sly狡猾的；狡诈的；诡计多端的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------repel ( v．) : drive or force back；hold or ward off击退；抵挡住----------------------------------------------------------------------------------fervent ( adj.) : having or showing great warmth of feeling；intensely devoted or earnest；ardent；passionate热烈的，满怀热情的，热心的，深表热诚的；强烈的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genesis ( n.) : the first book of the Bible，giving an account of the creation of the universe《创世纪》(《圣经·旧约》的首卷)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------snigger ( n.) : a sly，derisive，partly stifled laugh窃笑；暗笑----------------------------------------------------------------------------------twirl (v．) : rotate rapidly；spin(使)快速旋转，(使)迅速转动----------------------------------------------------------------------------------serpent ( n.) : a snake，esp. a large or poisonous one蛇(尤指大蛇或毒蛇)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------livid ( adj.) : grayish—blue；pale；lead—colored青灰色的；铅色的----------------------------------------------------------------------------------slur ( n.) : any remark or action that harms or is meant to harm someone's reputation；aspersion，reproach，stigma，etc．诽谤；污辱；诋毁，中伤，破坏……的名誉----------------------------------------------------------------------------------gavel ( n.) : a small mallet rapped on the table by a presiding officer in calling for attention orsilence or by an auctioneer(会议主席、法官或拍卖商用以敲击桌子的)小木槌，议事槌----------------------------------------------------------------------------------quell ( v．) : crush；subdue；put an end to镇压；平息----------------------------------------------------------------------------------hubbub ( n.) : a confused sound of many voices；noise；uproar；tumult吵闹声，喧哗，喧嚣；鼎沸；骚动----------------------------------------------------------------------------------forlorn (adj.) : abandoned or deserted被抛弃的；被遗弃的；孤独的，寂寞的／forlornly adv．----------------------------------------------------------------------------------verdict ( n.) : the formal and unanimous finding of a jury on the matter submitted to them in a trial 裁定；判决----------------------------------------------------------------------------------conviction ( n.) : a convicting 0r being convicted证明有罪；(被)判罪；定罪----------------------------------------------------------------------------------短语(Expressions)adhere to : continue to obey or maintain(esp，a rule，standard or belief)坚持，忠于例：She adheres to her principles throughout her teaching career. 她在整个教学生涯中始终坚持自己的原则。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
3
• P7: author‘s understanding of ‗ideology‘ • • ancient Greek allegory （hedgehog & fox） • to describe the difference between • ideology & empiricism • P8-9：show the source of American‘s mind was came from Calvinist theology, by which they immune to the ideological temptation.
7
Construe
• ―one‖ = one viewpoint = ideology • ―many‖ = many viewpoints = pragmatism
• Chinese‘ experience
―court historian‖ to
President Kennedy
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in the early 1960s
Ⅱ award
• Pulitzer prize for history - The Age of Jackson
• Pulitzer prize for biography - A Thousand
Days:John Kennedy in the White House
• National book award in Biography - Robert
Kennedy and His Times • The Imperial Presidency (1973) • The Disuniting of America (1991)
6
• P15-16: differences in the view of history • Ideologist support ‗one‘ – the world • as a whole • American tradition support ‗many‘— • representative William James • P17: transitional Para. relating above & follow • P18-19: example about the choice between • private and public means — to show • that cannot be answered by ideology • but experience and experiment.
• Construe of the ―one‖ and ―many‖
Ⅰ glory
• Most influential American
historian and social critic
• Harvard professor
• A Pulitzer Prize winner
• Special assistant and
• P10: example(the American Revolution) to show that U.S. in history immune to the temptation of ideology.
4
5
• P11-12: make clear the difference of idea and ideology. (by Thomas Jefferson‘s example) • fortunately, we can see that T.J. was prefer his idea of helping people to his ideology. Otherwise America now would not be a such strong country any more. • P13-14: point out that the ideologists confuse ideology with reality itself. • since the author was a famous critic in U.S., he kept a cautious tongue in his article avoid to be attacked by other critics. That‘s why he purposely use this two para. to explain.
• • •2 • • • • • • •
one factor— faith in education another factor— commitment to self-government and representative institution fundamental factor— national rejection of dogmatic preconceptions about the nature of the social and economic order
Q
S
C
P1—6 P7—19 P20—22 P1 raise issues of US exp. P2-6 factors facilitate US P7-10 definition of I & immune to the temptation of Ideology P11-12 T.J example differ idea & I P13-14 what‘s wrong with ideology P15-19 differ in history view & pubic policy P20-22 goal of I & free man, conclude
The One Against The Many
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
L/O/G/O
Outline
• Introduction of the author • Brief introduction of the text
• Structure analysis of the text
• Conclude: the ―many ‖should be choose
• P20: the basic conflict between one and many was the choice between dogmatism and pragmatism (theological society & experimental society) • P21: the goal of ideologist— a monolithic world • P22: the goal of free man— strive
Questions
1 2 3
What does one and many stand for? What have contributed U.S. to such rapid development? How does author point out his view?
Structure
• In author‘s view • • Refined • subsection • • • • • • •