love is a fallacy爱情是谬误

合集下载

Unit_5_Love_is_a_Fallacy爱是谬论 高英

Unit_5_Love_is_a_Fallacy爱是谬论 高英



Theme Song Lyrics Dobie, wants a little cutie,
Dobie, wants a little beauty, Dobie wants a gal to call his own
Any size, any style, any eyes, any smile, Any Jean, any Jane, any Joan.
"Dobie Gillis"

The moral of the story is "You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need."
Cupid Zelda hits her target (Dobie)
Quotations from Dobie Gillis (1)

"My name is Dobie Gillis and I like girls. What am I saying? I love girls! Love 'em! Beautiful, gorgeous, soft, round, creamy girls. Now, I'm not a wolf, mind you. No, you see a wolf wants lots of girls, but me? Well, I just want one. One beautiful, gorgeous, soft, round, creamy girl for my very own. That's all I want! One lousy girl!""But I'll tell you a sad, hard fact. I'm never gonna get a girl. Never. Why? Because to get a girl you need money . And standing between me and money is a powerful obstacle: a POWERFUL obstacle!"

《爱情是谬误》中的三重谬误

《爱情是谬误》中的三重谬误

佳木斯教育学院学报J ournal of J iamus i Education Ins titute2010年第5期总第101期No.5.2010Sum 101《爱情是谬误》中的三重谬误吕舒婷(中国人民大学外国语学院北京100872)摘 要:美国作家马克思舒尔曼的小品文《爱情是谬误》表面上是为了以一种幽默轻松的方式论证逻辑学,实际上揭示了三重谬误。

关键词:三重谬误;逻辑;爱情观;社会价值观中图分类号:I106文献标识码:A 文章编号:1000-9795(2010)05-0208-01收稿日期:6作者简介:吕舒婷(),女,浙江衢州人,从事电影文学方向的研究。

《爱情是谬误》(Love is a Fallacy)是美国作家马克思舒尔曼(Max Shulman)的一篇幽默小品文。

作者通过一个看似矛盾的标题,以谬误为线索,围绕着一件浣熊皮大衣,引出了一个发生在三个大学生之间的生动而幽默的故事,从而似乎圆满地论证了“爱情是谬误”这一命题的正确性。

然而,作者的真正目的绝非论证爱情的荒谬性这么简单。

本文试图透过这一极具迷惑力的标题,找出作者真正想要揭示的三重谬误——逻辑谬误,主人公爱情观的谬误,以及当时美国社会价值观的谬误。

一、逻辑谬误作者通过一个俏皮的讽刺故事,把草率前提、草率结论、假性因果、二律背反、诉诸同情、错误类比、与事实相反的假设、人身攻击这八类抽象的逻辑谬误融入到生动的故事情节中,让读者很快掌握其概念及用法。

二、故事中三个主人公爱情观的谬误故事的叙述者追求Polly 并非出于情感,而是为了找个漂亮、优雅、聪明的妻子,因为这样的妻子对一个成功律师来说是必要的(他坚信自己以后会成为一名成功律师)。

他对Polly 所做的一切努力都只是为了让她达到他心中体面妻子的标准罢了。

Petey 对于爱情的态度相当草率,只经过一段小小的挣扎,他便同意了叙述者提出的荒谬条件——用女友换一件浣熊皮大衣。

至于Polly ,其态度就愈发随便了。

love is a fallacy爱情是谬误(课堂PPT)

love is a fallacy爱情是谬误(课堂PPT)
7
What is logic?
• Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning . Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. But this is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.
English author, Scottish writer.
John Ruskin (1819-1900)
English critic and social theorist. A writer on art and architecture.
6
Warming up
• What is love? • What is logic? • What is logical fallacy?
4
Shulman was also a screenwriter(编剧). He was one of the collaborators(合作者) on a television documentary(记录),

love is a fallacy 爱情就是谬误

love is a fallacy 爱情就是谬误
a conclusion--the thesis argued for. The conclusion is said to be drawn, or inferred from the premises. certain premises-- the considerations adduced(提 出,举出) on behalf of the conclusion.( previous statements serving as a basis for an argument)
1945,He began writing Dobie Gillis stories for various humor magazines.
1951,these were collected and published as a book entitled "the many loves of Dobie Gillis "
cheek (say sth. that doesn't intend to be taken seriously 非认真地说话).
ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ
trauma –
a term in psychology (心理学) or psychiatry(精神 病学;精神病治疗法) meaning a painful emotional experience. 心灵创伤
Grainbelt University has one attraction for Dobie Gillis (Bobby Van) - women, especially Pansy Hammer (Debbie Reynolds). Pansy's father (Hanley Stafford), even though and maybe because she says she's in dreamville, does not share her affection for Dobie. An English essay which almost revolutionizes English instruction, and Dobie's role in a chemistry lab explosion convinces Mr. Hammer he is right. Pansy is sent off broken-hearted to an Eastern school, but with the help of Happy Stella Kolawski's (Kathleen Freeman) all-girl band, several hundred students and an enraged police force, Dobie secures Pansy's return to Grainbelt.

love is a fallacy 爱情是谬误

love is a fallacy 爱情是谬误

在进入今天主题,讲述我和小美的故事之前我想先给大家推荐这样的一片文章,其实正是因为我自己的经历我才深深的懂得了这篇文章的内在,而我希望将它跟大家分享,如果你在爱情里面遇到类似的问题,那么我相信这篇文章会给你一点启示的,当然同时,你也可以提升自己的英文。

Love Is a Fallacy《爱情是个谬误》这是一篇我非常喜欢的文章,这也是在大学里我教授的三年级外语专业学生高级英语课本里面的一篇经典文章,国外的大学生也会同步在写作课学习这篇文章。

以前我喜欢它只是单纯把它当做一篇幽默的文章来对待,其实也没有深深的去体会过其中滋味,但是现在我才真正体会到为什么爱情是一个谬误。

主人公是一个非常自信甚至很自负的法学院大一男生Dobbie,他自认为又帅,又有才,他看上了自己室友的女友,很想得到那个女生,但是这个女生Polly 只是一个表面很漂亮但却很没有脑子的女生,所以Dobbie决定要先改变这个女孩,把她变聪明之后再得到她。

当然第一步是得先得到室友的同意。

室友是一个拜金狂,依然没有脑子,于是Dobbie用一件浣熊大衣作为交换条件就轻松得到了室友的许可,于是就和Polly开始约会了。

约会的内容就是教不同的逻辑谬误给Polly,为的就是让她变聪明,因为主人公认为逻辑是让人变聪明的法宝,于是约会就这么开始了,他教授的逻辑问题如下:1. 绝对判断(Dicto Simpliciter)的谬误。

例子如下:“运动是非常有益的,它能增强体质,所以每个人都应该做运动!”,这个论断是明显错误的,因为运动有益是一种无条件的前提。

比方说,假设你得了心脏病,运动不但无益,反而有害,有不少人医生就不准他们运动。

你必须给这种前提加以限制。

你应该说,一般来说运动是有益的。

或者说,对大多数人是有益的。

否则就是犯了绝对判断的错误2. 草率结论(Hasty Generalization)的谬误。

例子如下:“你不会讲法语,我不会讲法语,皮蒂也不会讲法语。

大学英语精读爱情就是谬误love is fallacy

大学英语精读爱情就是谬误love is fallacy

5.爱情就是谬误马克思*舒熟尔曼查尔斯.兰姆是一个世所罕见的性情欢快、富有进取心的人,他那笔下的散文《古瓷器》和《梦中的孩子》无拘无束、自由奔放。

实在令人难忘。

下面这篇文章比兰姆的作品更加自由奔放。

实际上,用“自由奔放”的字眼来形容这篇文章并不十分确切,或许用“柔软”、“轻松”或“轻软而富有弹性”更为恰如其分。

尽管很难说清这篇文章是属于哪一类,但可以肯定它是一篇散文小品文。

它提出了论点。

引用了许多例证,并得出了结论。

卡菜尔能写得更好吗?罗斯金呢?这篇文章意在论证逻辑学非但不枯燥乏味而且活泼、清新、富于关感和激情,并给人以启迪。

诸位不妨一读。

——作者注我这个人头脑冷静,逻辑思维能力强。

敏锐、慎重、聪慧、深刻、机智一一这些就是我的特点。

我的大脑像发电机一样发达,孳化学家的天平一样精确,像手术刀一样锋利。

一一你知道吗?我才十八岁呀。

年纪这么轻而智力又如此非凡的人并不常有。

就拿在明尼苏达大学跟我同住一个房间的皮蒂·伯奇来说吧,他跟我年龄相哆’经历一样,可他笨得像头驴。

小伙子长得年轻漂亮,可惜脑子里却空空如也。

他易于激动,情绪反复无常,容易受别人的影响。

最糟的是他爱赶时髦。

我认为,赶时髦就是最缺乏理智的表现。

见到一q9种新鲜的东西就跟着学,以为别人都在那么干,自己也就卷进去傻干——这在我看来,简直愚蠢至极,但皮蒂却不以为然。

一天下午我看见皮蒂躺在床上,脸上显露出一种痛苦不堪的表情,我立刻断定他是得了阑尾炎。

“别动,”我说,“别吃泻药,我就请医生来。

”“浣熊,”他咕哝着说。

“浣熊?”我停下来问道。

“我要一件浣熊皮大衣,”他痛苦地哭叫着。

我明白了,他不是身体不舒服,而是精神上不太正常。

“你为什么要浣熊皮大衣?”“我本早该知道,”他哭叫着,用拳头捶打着太阳穴,“我早该知道查尔斯登舞再度流行时,浣熊皮大衣也会时兴起来的。

我真傻,钱都买了课本,可现在不能买浣熊皮大衣了。

”我带着怀疑的眼神问道:“你是说人们真的又要穿浣熊皮大衣吗?”“校园里有身分的人哪个不穿?你刚从哪儿来?”“图书馆,”我说了一个有身分的人不常去的地方。

love-is-a-fallacy-爱情是谬误培训讲学

love-is-a-fallacy-爱情是谬误培训讲学

在进入今天主题,讲述我和小美的故事之前我想先给大家推荐这样的一片文章,其实正是因为我自己的经历我才深深的懂得了这篇文章的内在,而我希望将它跟大家分享,如果你在爱情里面遇到类似的问题,那么我相信这篇文章会给你一点启示的,当然同时,你也可以提升自己的英文。

Love Is a Fallacy《爱情是个谬误》这是一篇我非常喜欢的文章,这也是在大学里我教授的三年级外语专业学生高级英语课本里面的一篇经典文章,国外的大学生也会同步在写作课学习这篇文章。

以前我喜欢它只是单纯把它当做一篇幽默的文章来对待,其实也没有深深的去体会过其中滋味,但是现在我才真正体会到为什么爱情是一个谬误。

主人公是一个非常自信甚至很自负的法学院大一男生Dobbie,他自认为又帅,又有才,他看上了自己室友的女友,很想得到那个女生,但是这个女生Polly 只是一个表面很漂亮但却很没有脑子的女生,所以Dobbie决定要先改变这个女孩,把她变聪明之后再得到她。

当然第一步是得先得到室友的同意。

室友是一个拜金狂,依然没有脑子,于是Dobbie用一件浣熊大衣作为交换条件就轻松得到了室友的许可,于是就和Polly开始约会了。

约会的内容就是教不同的逻辑谬误给Polly,为的就是让她变聪明,因为主人公认为逻辑是让人变聪明的法宝,于是约会就这么开始了,他教授的逻辑问题如下:1. 绝对判断(Dicto Simpliciter)的谬误。

例子如下:“运动是非常有益的,它能增强体质,所以每个人都应该做运动!”,这个论断是明显错误的,因为运动有益是一种无条件的前提。

比方说,假设你得了心脏病,运动不但无益,反而有害,有不少人医生就不准他们运动。

你必须给这种前提加以限制。

你应该说,一般来说运动是有益的。

或者说,对大多数人是有益的。

否则就是犯了绝对判断的错误2. 草率结论(Hasty Generalization)的谬误。

例子如下:“你不会讲法语,我不会讲法语,皮蒂也不会讲法语。

(完整word版)高级英语第二册第五单元love is a fallacy课文翻译

(完整word版)高级英语第二册第五单元love is a fallacy课文翻译

第五单元课文翻译爱情就是谬误马克斯·舒尔曼1).查尔斯·兰姆是一个世所罕见的性情欢快、富有进取心的人,他那笔下的散文《古瓷器》和《梦中的孩子)无拘无束、自由奔放,实在令人难忘。

下面这篇文章比兰姆的作品更加自由奔放。

实际上,用“自由奔放”的字眼来形容这篇文章并不十分确切,或许用“柔软”、“轻松”或“轻软而富有弹性”更为恰如其分。

2).尽管很难说清这篇文章是属于哪一类,但可以肯定它是一篇散文小品文。

它提出了论点,引用了许多例证,并得出了结论。

卡莱尔能写得更好吗? 罗斯金呢?3).这篇文章意在论证逻辑学非但不枯燥乏味,而且活泼、清新、富于美感和激情,并给人以启迪。

诸位不妨一读o——作者注1.我这个人头脑冷静,逻辑思维能力强。

敏锐、慎重、聪慧、深刻、机智——这些就是我的特点。

我的大脑像发电机一样发达,像化学家的天平一样精确,像手术刀一样锋利。

——你知道吗?我才十八岁呀。

2.年纪这么轻而智力又如此非凡的人并不常有。

就拿在明尼苏达大学跟我同住一个房间的皮蒂·伯奇来说吧,他跟我年龄相仿,经历一样,可他笨得像头驴。

小伙子长得年轻漂亮,可惜脑子里却空空如也。

他易于激动,情绪反复无常,容易受别人的影响。

最糟的是他爱赶时髦。

我认为,赶时髦就是最缺乏理智的表现。

见到一种新鲜的东西就跟着学,以为别人都在那么干,自己也就卷进去傻干——这在我看来,简直愚蠢至极,但皮蒂却不以为然。

3.一天下午,我看见皮蒂躺在床上,脸上显露出一种痛苦不堪的表情,我立刻断定他是得了阑尾炎。

“别动,”我说,“别吃泻药,我就请医生来。

”4.“浣熊,”他咕哝着说。

5.“浣熊?”我停下来问道。

6.“我要一件浣熊皮大衣,”他痛苦地哭叫着。

7.我明白了,他不是身体不舒服,而是精神上不太正常。

“你为什么要浣熊皮大衣?”8.“我本早该知道,”他哭叫着,用拳头捶打着太阳穴,“我早该知道查尔斯登舞再度流行时,浣熊皮大衣也会时兴起来的。

我真傻,钱都买了课本,可现在不能买浣熊皮大衣了。

  1. 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. 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. 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)。

Shulman was also a screenwriter(编剧). He was one of the collaborators(合作者) on a television documentary(记录), Light‘s Diamond Jubilee《光明的周年纪 念》, which was supposedly a celebration of the 75th anniversary(周年) of the invention of the light bulb by Thomas A. Edison.
Author
Max Shulman (March 14, 1919–August 28, 1988) is a 20th century American writer best known for his television and short story character Dobie Gillis, as well as for best-selling novels. His writing often focused on young people, particularly in a collegiate setting. Shulman works include the novels Rally Round the Flag, Boys! and Sleep Till Noon. He was also a co-writer, with Robert Paul Smith, of the longrunning Broadway play, The Tender Trap, starring Robert Preston, which was later made into a successful movie.
Questions on the text
• What’s the main idea of the text? • What is the purpose of this story?
Main idea of the text
• This text is a piece of narrative(叙事) writing, and the whole story is humorous satire(讽刺). • The writer, Max Shulman, is satirizing or making fun of a smug, self-conceited(自负的) freshman in a law school. The freshman is made the narrator of the story who goes on smugly boasting and singing praises of himself at any conceivable opportunity .He struggles against two antagonists(n.对手): Petey Burch, his roommate whose girlfriend he plans to steal; and Polly Espy, the girl he intends to marry after suitable re-education. In order to smarten her up, the narrator decides to give her a course in logic. He succeeds too well because the whole thing backfires(事与愿违) on him when Polly refutes (驳斥) all his arguments as logical fallacies before finally rejecting him. At the end of the story, the reader feels the narrator has got what he deserved(应得的). He has been too clever for his own good.
The examples of logical fallacies
• 1.Dicto Simpliciter (以偏概全) • My roommate thinks that philosophy lesson is very hard, so is mine , thus , everyone think that the philosophy lesson is difficult. • 2.Hasty Generalization (草率推断) • Guns and hammer , as well as metal can be recognized as murder tools.But limited purchase of hammers are ridiculous, thus limited to buy guns are also ridiculous.
Logical fallacies in this story
• • • • • • • • 1.Dicto Simpliciter (以偏概全) 2.Hasty Generalization (草率推断) 3.Post Hoc (牵强附会) 4.Contradictory Premises (自相矛盾) 5.Ad Misericordiam (文不对题) 6.False Analogy (错误对比) 7.Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (违背事实) 8.Poisoning the Well (井中投毒)
What is logical fallacy?
• Usually , an argument is deductively valid when its premises provide conclusive evidence for the conclusion. Otherwise an argument that fails to be conclusively deduced is invalid; it is said to be fallacious. • Three kinds of fallacy: – 1. material fallacy -- in its material content through a misstatement of the facts. – 2. verbal fallacy -- in its wording through an incorrect use of terms. – 3. formal fallacy --in its structure through the use of an improper process of inference.
Charles Lamb (1775-1834) English essayist and critic.

Thomas Carlyle ( 1795-1881) English author, Scottish writer.
John Ruskin (1819-1900) English critic and social theorist. A writer on art and architecture.
Logical fallacy:逻辑谬论
逻辑论证,即提出支持某些论题或结论的论据。论 证有两个部分组成:论点所支持的结论,与引证结 论的某些前提。而结论是经由前提所推导出来的。 当前提为结论提供确凿证据时,论据的演绎推理便 有效;反之则会成为谬论。 成为谬误的方式有三种: a内容,即事实陈述错误;b措词,即术语使用错误; c结构(或形式),即推导过程错误。那么,逻辑谬 误可分为三类,即内容(material)谬误,措词 (verbal)谬误以及形式(formal)谬误。
Author
However, he is probably best remembered for his creation of the character “Dobie Gillis”, who was the subject of a series of short stories compiled under the title, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, which became the basis for a CBS television series of the same name, and had previously been the subject of a film.
• 3.Post Hoc (牵强附会) • The last five times that I‟ve worn my white pants , something depressing has happened. I‟m not going to wear those pants again!
Warming up
• What is love? • What is logic? • What is logical fallacy?
What is logic?
• Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning . Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. But this is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.
相关文档
最新文档