영어해석 좀 부탁드립니다. 고수님들 도와주세요. 내공 30 겁니다.
-
게시물 수정 , 삭제는 로그인 필요
1.
When we survey our lives and endeavours we soon observe that almost the whole of our actions and desires are bound up with the existence of other human beings. We see that our whole nature resembles that of the social animals. We eat food that others have grown, wear clothes that others have made, live in houses that others have built. The greater part of our knowledge and beliefs has been communicated to us by other people through the medium of a language which othershace created. We hace, therefore, to admit that we owe our principal advantage over the beasts to the fact of living in human society. The indicidual, if left alone from birth, would remain primitive and beast-like in his thoughts and feelings to a degree that we can hardly conceive. The individual is what he is and has the significance that he has, not so much in virtue of his individuality, but rather as a member of a great human society, which directs his material and spiritual existence from the cradle to the grace. A man's value to the community depends primarily on how fat his feelings, thoughts, and actions are directed towards promoting the good of his fellows.
Albert Einstein: The world as I See It
2.
There is a point in the story of the Chinese historian who, When asked what he thought about the French revolution, replied that no serious historian could yet be expected to hace an opinion about so recent. Macaulay regarded the nineteenth century as a century of progress, Spengler and Toynbee as a century of decay. Even if we are content with a commom-sense general view of progress and do not attemt a precise definition, we hace today frankly no means of deciding which view is right.Will our posterity judge the nineteenth century as the beginning of a great new period of human achiecement or as the beginning of the end of our civilization? We do not know what to think about the nineteenth century for the simple reason that the history of the twentieth century is still in the making. The gistorian of A,D. 2,000 will be in a better case to pronounce judgment. But need we accept even his verdict---especially as it may easily be reversed by the historian of A.D. 2,500? Two thousand
When we survey our lives and endeavours we soon observe that almost the whole of our actions and desires are bound up with the existence of other human beings. We see that our whole nature resembles that of the social animals. We eat food that others have grown, wear clothes that others have made, live in houses that others have built. The greater part of our knowledge and beliefs has been communicated to us by other people through the medium of a language which othershace created. We hace, therefore, to admit that we owe our principal advantage over the beasts to the fact of living in human society. The indicidual, if left alone from birth, would remain primitive and beast-like in his thoughts and feelings to a degree that we can hardly conceive. The individual is what he is and has the significance that he has, not so much in virtue of his individuality, but rather as a member of a great human society, which directs his material and spiritual existence from the cradle to the grace. A man's value to the community depends primarily on how fat his feelings, thoughts, and actions are directed towards promoting the good of his fellows.
Albert Einstein: The world as I See It
2.
There is a point in the story of the Chinese historian who, When asked what he thought about the French revolution, replied that no serious historian could yet be expected to hace an opinion about so recent. Macaulay regarded the nineteenth century as a century of progress, Spengler and Toynbee as a century of decay. Even if we are content with a commom-sense general view of progress and do not attemt a precise definition, we hace today frankly no means of deciding which view is right.Will our posterity judge the nineteenth century as the beginning of a great new period of human achiecement or as the beginning of the end of our civilization? We do not know what to think about the nineteenth century for the simple reason that the history of the twentieth century is still in the making. The gistorian of A,D. 2,000 will be in a better case to pronounce judgment. But need we accept even his verdict---especially as it may easily be reversed by the historian of A.D. 2,500? Two thousand
