The table before which we sit may be, as the scientist maintains, compod of dancing atoms, but it does not reveal itlf to us as anything of the kind, and it is not with dancing atoms but a solid and motionless object that we live. So remote is this "real" table—and most of the other "realities" with which science deals—that it cannot be discusd in terms which have any human value, and though it may receive out purely intellectual credence it cannot be woven into the pattern of life as it is led, in contradistinction to life as we attempt to think about it. Vibrations in the either are so totally unlike, let us say, the color purple that the gulf between them cannot be bridged, and they are, to all intents and purpos, not one but two parate things of which the cond and less "real" must be the most significant for us. And just as the nsation which has led us to attribute an objective reality to a non-existent thing which we call "purple" is more important for human life than the conception of vibrations of a certain frequency, so too the belief in God, however ill founded, has been more important in the life of man than the germ theory of decay, however true the latter may be. We may, if we like, speak of conquence, as certain mystics love to do, of the different levels or orders of truth. We may adopt what is esntially a Platonist trick of thought and insist upon postulating the existence of external realities which correspond to the needs and modes of human feeling and which, so we may insist, have their being is some part of the univer unreachable by science. But to do so is to make an unwarrantable assumption and to be guilty of the metaphysical fallacy of failing to distinguish between a truth of feeling and that other sort of truth which is described as a "truth of correspondence," and it is better perhaps, at least for tho of us who have grown up in an age of scientific thought, to steer clear of such confusions and to rest content with the admission that, though the univer with which science deals is the real univer, yet we do not and cannot have any but fleeting and imperfect contacts with it; that the most important part of our lives-our nsations, emotions, desires, and aspirations-takes place in a univer of illusions which science can attenuate or destroy, but which it is powerless to enrich. |
The days we hear a lot of nonn about the "great classless society". The idea that the twentieth century is the age of the common man has become one of the great cliches of our time. The same old arguments are put forward in evidence. Here are some of them: monarchy as a system of government has been completely discredited. The monarchies that survive have been deprived of all political power. Inherited wealth has been savagely reduced by taxation and, in time, the great fortunes will disappear altogether. In a number of countries the victory has been complete. The people rule; the great millennium has become a political reality. But has it? Clo examination doesn't bear out the claim. 拾音器接线It is a fallacy to suppo that all men are equal and that society will be leveled out if you provide everybody with the same educational opportunities. (It is debatable whether you can ever provide everyone with the same educational opportunities, but that is another question.) The fact is that nature dispens brains and ability with a total disregard for the principle of equality. The old rules of the jungle, "survival of the fittest", and "might is right" are still with us. The spread of education has destroyed the old class system and created a new one. Rewards are bad on merit. For "aristocracy" read "meritocracy"; in other respects, society remains unaltered: the class system is rigidly maintained. Genuine ability, animal cunning, skill, the knack of izing opportunities, all bring material rewards. And what is the first thing people do when they become rich? They u their wealth to cure the best possible opportunities for their children, to give them a good start in life. For all the lip rvice we pay to the idea of equality, we do not consider this wrong in the western world. Private schools which offer unfair advantages over state schools are not banned becau one of the principles in a democracy is that people should be free to choo how they will educate their children. In this way, the new meritocracy can perpetuate itlf to a certain extent: an able child from a wealthy home can succeed far more rapidly than his poorer counterpart. Wealth is also ud indiscriminately to further political ends. It would be almost impossible to become the leader of a democracy without massive, financial backing. Money is as powerful a weapon as ever it was. In societies wholly dedicated to the principle of social equality, privileged private education is forbidden. But even here people are rewarded according to their abilities. In fact, so great is the need for skilled workers that the least able may be neglected. Bright children are carefully and expensively trained to become future rulers. In the end, all political ideologies boil down to the same thing: class divisions persist whether you are ruled by a feudal king or an educated peasant. |
本文发布于:2023-06-01 00:01:52，感谢您对本站的认可！
本文链接：https://www.wtabcd.cn/fanwen/fan/82/823301.html
版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系，我们将在24小时内删除。
| 留言与评论（共有 0 条评论） |
