The One Against the Many 课文原文

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 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 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 a ny 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. Y et 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 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 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”. 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 wa ys 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.

趵突泉教案

教学内容：小学语文教科版三年级下册第九课《趵突泉》 教学目标：1．通过朗读课文来理解课文内容，了解济南名胜趵突泉的特点，激发热爱大自然的思想情感和爱美的情趣。 2．学习作者细致观察和具体形象地描写事物的方法，培养观察能力和理解、表达能力。 3．正确流利有感情地朗读课文。 教学重点:了解大泉、小泉的特点，学习作者细致观察和具体形象地描述方法。 教学难点：指导学生朗读，体会作者写作方法。 教学准备：多媒体课件 教学过程： 一、直入课文 师：同学们课前预习课文了，知道济南的三大名胜是什么吗？趵突泉最为著名。看，这就是号称天下第一泉的趵突泉。（播放课件）这堂课就让我们跟随老舍先生游览《趵突泉》。（板书课题） 二、回顾课文 1、师：趵突泉给你怎样的印象呢？请同学轻轻翻开书自由读读课文，再汇报。 学生汇报：清浅、活泼、美丽 2、师：再读课文想一想；作者是从哪几个方面来介绍趵突泉的美的？学生汇报：课文从泉水、大泉、小泉三方面来介绍趵突泉的美的。

三、精读课文，抓景物特点 1、学习“泉水”部分 师：作者还没来到趵突泉，出了济南的西门，在桥上就感受到趵突泉的美了！请同学们自由读第2自然段，找到体现泉水特点的句子。学生汇报，同时课件出示句子，理解词语清浅和鲜洁的意思。 师：泉水真美呢，不知道你注意到没有，一个“活水”体现了作者对泉水的喜爱。正是这泉水滋润着岸边的杨柳，使济南城树水相映，幽静美丽，作者不禁发出感叹，出示句子（假如没有趵突泉，济南会失去它一半儿的妩媚） 师：妩媚是什么意思？从这句话中你体会到了什么？（生回答） 2、学习“大泉”部分 第2 / 4页师：趵突泉真那么美吗？那我们就踏着小溪往南走，到趵突泉公园，去欣赏大泉的美。 （1）默读第3自然段，用“—”画出作者看到什么，用“～～”画出作者想到或感受到了什么？ （2）学生汇报看到的、想到的 （3）描写大泉的句子中，你喜欢哪句，说说你的体会。 （逐句应该怎样朗读？）读句子练习 到了冬天，趵突泉怎样？你感受到了什么？ 水面上水气袅袅，如层层薄雾，仿佛走进了人间仙境。“此景只应天上有，人间难得几处寻”。

新概念第四册课文[新概念第四册课文翻译及学习笔记【Lesson43、44、45】]

新概念第四册课文[新概念第四册课文翻译及学习笔记 【Lesson43、44、45】] 【导语】新概念英语作为一套世界闻名的英语教程，以其全新的教学理念，有趣的课文内容和全面的技能训练，深受广大英语学习者的欢迎和喜爱。为了方便同学们的学习，大为大家了最全面的新概念第四册课文翻译及学习笔记，希望为大家的新概念英语学习提供帮 助! First listen and then answer the following question. What does the "uniquely rational way" for us to municate with other intelligent beings in space depend on? We must conclude from the work of those who have studied the origin of life, that given a pla only approximately like our own, life is almost certain to start. Of all the plas in our solar system, we ware now pretty certain the Earth is the only one on which life can survive. Mars is too dry and poor in oxygen, Venus far too hot, and so is Mercury, and the outer plas have temperatures near absolute zero and hydrogen-dominated atmospheres. But other suns, start as the astronomers call them, are bound to have plas like our own, and

新概念英语第四册课文word版

—－可编辑修改，可打印—— 别找了你想要的都有！ 精品教育资料——全册教案，，试卷，教学课件，教学设计等一站式服务—— 全力满足教学需求，真实规划教学环节 最新全面教学资源，打造完美教学模式

Lesson1 We can read of things that happened 5,000 years ago in the Near East, where people first learned to write. But there are some parts of the world where even now people cannot write. The only way that they can preserve their history is to recount it as sagas--legends handed down from one generation of story-tellers to another. These legends are useful because they can tell us something about migrations of people who lived long ago, but none could write down what they did. Anthropologists wondered where the remote ancestors of the Polynesian peoples now living in the Pacific Islands came from. The sagas of these people explain that some of them came from Indonesia about 2,000 years ago. But the first people who were like ourselves lived so long ago that even their sagas, if they had any, are forgotten. So archaeologists have neither history nor legends to help them to find out where the first 'modern men' came from.

语文 -趵突泉_四年级语文教案

语文－趵突泉_四年级语文教案 .教案示例一 1 、趵突泉 第一课时 教学目标： 1、初读课文，了解课文内容，通过查工具书，联系上下文，学习生字，理解新出现的词语。 2、结合图画明确作者观察的顺序和重点，初步学习课文，学习作者抓住事物特点进行描写的方法。 教学重点、难点： 学习作者抓住事物特点进行描写的方法。 教学过程： 一、初读课文，了解课文内容，检查预习情况。 1．注意以下字的读音： 2.形近字 佛——拂泼——拨洁——结摇——遥 秘——密妩——抚扁——偏倦——蜷 3．理解生字词语： 二、仔细观察图画，再认真读课文，在图画中试着找一找大泉眼，并想一想每个自然段讲的是什么? 1．小组学习，概括自然段段意： 第1自然段：趵突泉是济南的三大名胜之一。 第2自然段：趵突泉泉水清浅、鲜洁，它为济南增添了美。 第3自然段：大泉日夜翻滚，冬天会有一番神秘的景象。 第4自然段：小泉多姿多态，活泼、有趣。 这是一篇写景的文章，作者按照去趵突泉公园游览的路线从不同方面介绍了趵突泉。 三、指导朗读课文。 四、作业 熟读课文。 第二课时 教学目标： 1、学习作者细致观察和具体形象地描写事物的方法，培养观察能力和理解、表达能力。 2、仿照课文中的句子，用“那么……那么……”写句子。 教学重点、难点： 学习作者把观察到的事物，再具体形象地加以描写的方法。 教学过程： 一、学习第一段。 第一自然段只一句话，上半句讲趵突泉是济南的三大名胜之一，下半句“单讲”趵突泉。那么，这一段在文章里起了什么作用？

（文章开门见山，语言简洁，起到了“引起下文”的作用。） 二、看图画，阅读学习第二自然段。 小组学习，思考： 1．作者还没有来到趵突泉公园，就已经感受到了趵突泉的美了，那是为什么呢？ 2、泉水的特点是什么？ 3、你是怎么理解泉水特点的？ 4、“假如没有趵突泉，济南定会丢失一半的美。”“美”是什么意思？作者为什么这样说？ （是在桥上看到的趵突泉流出的泉水和泉水流过岸边“幽静”的环境。） （清浅”“鲜洁”） （“清浅”的意思是干净、清澈见底。“鲜洁”的意思是水质鲜活，没有杂质。） （“美”一般形容女子、花木等姿态美好可爱。作者感到在济南美丽的山光水色之中，趵突泉的美丽占有十分重要的位置，假如没有趵突泉，就大大逊色了。） 三、看图画，阅读学习第三自然段。 1．教学过渡：作者说“假如没有趵突泉，济南定会丢失一半的美。”接下来，我们就看看趵突泉到底是怎样的“美”。 2、读课文，学生小组讨论， 思考： （1）这一段哪几句具体写大泉？作者笔下描绘的大泉是什么样的景象？有什么特点？ （2）写“不断地翻滚”是怎样具体写的？ （3）作者一边描绘大泉，一边写出了自己的感受。想象水“翻滚”的样子，联系课文内容，说说翻滚的大泉给作者和我们的感觉是什么？反复读这三句话，从中体会作者深深的感受。 （3～6句） （看到水从三个大泉眼里往上冒，不断地翻滚。） （“像煮沸了似的，不断地翻滚。”“……没昼没夜地冒，冒，冒，永远那么晶莹，那么活泼，好像永远不知疲倦。”） （自然的伟大） 3．在这一段里，作者除了写大泉的景象，还向我们介绍了什么？（泉池的形状、泉口的位置和水的流向） 4、如果说，平时的趵突泉那么“翻滚”，“好像永远不知疲倦”，那么，冬天的趵突泉怎样呢？ （更好） 怎么“更好”？是一个怎样“更好”的景象？平时的泉“伟大”，冬天的泉给我们留下什么印象？ （“神秘的境界”） 6、小结：这一段描写趵突泉大泉的美丽景色，突出表现了大泉“昼夜不息”地“翻滚”的自然的伟大，以及冬天趵突泉的神秘感。使我们和作者一样感受了自然的震撼。 7、有感情地朗读这一段。 四、阅读学习第四段。 1．齐读这一段，作者怎样从描写大泉过渡到描写小泉的？ （多姿多态） 2．小泉有什么特点？ （过渡句：“池边还有数不清的小泉眼”） 怎么“多姿多态”？作者采用什么句式列举了泉水往上冒的样子？

新概念英语第四册课文：Lesson4

新概念英语第四册课文：Lesson4 【课文】 First listen and then answer the following question. 听录音，然后回答以下问题。 How did Vera discover she had this gift of second sight? Several cases have been reported in Russia recently of people who can read and detect colours with their fingers, and even see through solid doors and walls. One case concerns an eleven-year-old schoolgirl, Vera Petrova, who has normal vision but who can also perceive things with different parts of her skin, and through solid walls. This ability was first noticed by her father. One day she came into his office and happened to put her hands on the door of a locked safe. Suddenly she asked her father why he kept so many old newspapers locked away there, and even described the way they were done up in bundles. Vera's curious talent was brought to the notice of a scientific research institute in the town of Ulyanovsk, near where she lives, and in April she was given a series of tests by a special commission of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federal Republic. During these tests she was able to read a newspaper through an opaque screen and, stranger still, by moving her elbow over a child's game of Lotto she was able to describe the figures and colours printed on it; and, in another instance, wearing stockings and slippers, to make out with her foot the outlines and colours of a picture hidden under a carpet. Other experiments showed that her knees and

新概念英语4-课文

NEW CONCEPT ENGLISH (IV) (new version) 2 Lesson 1 Finding Fossil man We can read of things that happened 5,000 years ago in the Near East, where people first learned to write. But there are some parts of the world where even now people cannot write. The only w ay that they can preserve their history is torecount it as sagas--legends handed down from one generation of story-tellersto another. These legends are useful because they can tell us somethin g aboutmigrations of people who lived long ago, but none could write down what they did. Anthropologists wondered where the remote ancestors of the Polynesianpeoples now living in th e Pacific Islands came from. The sagas of these peopleexplain that some of them came from Indo nesia about 2,000 years ago.But the first people who were like ourselves lived so long ago that ev en theirsagas, if they had any, are forgotten. So archaeologists have neither history nor legends to help them to find out where the first 'modern men' came from.Fortunately, however, ancient me n made tools of stone, especially flint, becausethis is easier to shape than other kinds. They may also have used woodand skins, but these have rotted away. Stone does not decay, and so the tool s oflong ago have remained when even the bones of the men who made them have disappeared without trace. 3 Lesson 2 Spare that spider Why, you may wonder, should spiders be our friends ? Because they destroy somany insects, and insects include some of the greatest enemies of the humanrace. Insects would make it impossible for us to live in the world; they woulddevour all our crops and kill our flocks and herds, if it were not for the protectionwe get from insect-eating animals. We owe a lot to the birds and beasts wh o eat insects but all of them put together kill only a fraction of the number destroyed by spiders. Moreover, unlike some of the other insect eaters, spiders never dothe least harm to us or our bel ongings.Spiders are not insects, as many people think, nor even nearly related to them.One can t ell the difference almost at a glance for a spider always has eight legsand an insect never more th an six.How many spiders are engaged in this work on our behalf ? One authority on spiders made a census of the spiders in a grass field in the south of England, andhe estimated that there were more than 2,250,000 in one acre, that is something like 6,000,000 spiders of different kinds on a f ootball pitch. Spiders are busy for at least half the year in killing insects. It is impossible to make more than the wildest guess at how many they kill, but they are hungry creatures, not content wi th only three meals a day. It has been estimated that the weight of all the insects destroyed by spi ders in Britain in one year would be greater than the total weight of all the human beings in the c ountry.T. H. GILLESPIE Spare that Spider from The Listene Lesson 3 Matterhorn man Modern alpinists try to climb mountains by a route which will give them goodsport, and the more

新概念第四册课文打印版

`课文1 发现化石人 1. We can read of things that happened 5,000 years ago in the Near East, where people first learned to write. 我们从书籍中可读到5,000 年前近东发生的事情，那里的人最早学会了写字。 2. But there are some parts of the world where even now people cannot write. 但直到现在,世界上有些地方，人们还不会书写。 3. The only way that they can preserve their history is to recount it as sagas -- legends handed down from one generation of story tales to another. 他们保存历史的唯一办法是将历史当作传说讲述，由讲述人一代接一代地将史实描述为传奇故事口传下来。 4. These legends are useful because they can tell us something about migrations of people who lived long ago, 这些传说是有用的，因为他们告诉我们很久以前生活在这里的移民的一些事情。 5. but none could write down what they did. 但是没有人能写下来。 6. Anthropologists wondered where the remote ancestors of the Polynesian peoples now living in the Pacific Islands came from. 人类学家过去不清楚如今生活在太平洋诸岛上的波利尼西亚人的祖先来自何方， 7. The sagas of these people explain that some of them came from Indonesia about 2,000 years ago. 当地人的传说却告诉人们：其中一部分是约在2,000年前从印度尼西亚迁来的。 8. But the first people who were like ourselves lived so long ago that even their sagas,if they had any, are forgotten. 但是，和我们相似的原始人生活的年代太久远了，因此，有关他们的传说既使有如今也失传了。 9. So archaeologists have neither history nor legends to help them to find out where the first 'modern men' came from. 于是，考古学家们既缺乏历史记载，又无口头传说来帮助他们弄清最早的“现代人”是从哪里来的。 10. Fortunately, however, ancient men made tools of stone, especially flint, 然而，幸运的是，远古人用石头制作了工具，特别是用燧石， 11. because this is easier to shape than other kinds. 因为燧石较之其他石头更容易成形。 12. They may also have used wood and skins, but these have rotted away. 他们也可能用过木头和兽皮，但这类东西早已腐烂殆尽。 13. Stone does not decay, and so the tools of long ago have remained when even the bones of the men who made them have disappeared without trace. 石头是不会腐烂的。因此，尽管制造这些工具的人的骨头早已荡然无存，但远古时代的石头工具却保存了下来。 $课文2 不要伤害蜘蛛 14. Why, you may wonder, should spiders be our friends? 你可能会觉得奇怪，蜘蛛怎么会是我们的朋友呢？ 15. Because they destroy so many insects, and insects include some of the greatest enemies of the human race. 因为它们能消灭那么多的昆虫，其中包括一些人类的大敌， 16. Insects would make it impossible for us to live in the world; 昆虫就会使我们无法在地球上生活下去， 17. they would devour all our crops and kill our flocks and herds, 昆虫会吞食我们的全部庄稼，杀死我们的成群的牛羊。 18. if it were not for the protection we get from insect-eating animals. 要不是人类受一些食虫动物的保护， 19. We owe a lot to the birds and beasts who eat insects but all of them put together kill only a fraction of the number dest royed by spiders. 我们要十分感谢那些吃昆虫的鸟和兽，然而把它们所杀死的昆虫全部加在一起也只相当于蜘蛛所消灭的一小部分。 20. Moreover, unlike some of the other insect eaters, spiders never do the harm to us or our belongings. 此外，蜘蛛不同于其他食虫动物，它们丝毫不危害我们和我们的财物。 21. Spiders are not insects, as many people think, nor even nearly related to them. 许多人认为蜘蛛是昆虫，但它们不是昆虫，甚至与昆虫毫无关系。 22. One can tell the difference almost at a glance, 人们几乎一眼就能看出二者的差异， 23. for a spider always has eight legs and insect never more than six. 因为蜘蛛都是8条腿，而昆虫的腿从不超过6条。 24. How many spiders are engaged in this work no our behalf? 有多少蜘蛛在为我们效力呢？ 25. One authority on spiders made a census of the spiders in grass field in the south of England, 一位研究蜘蛛的权威对英国南部一块草坪上的蜘蛛作了一次调查。 26. and he estimated that there were more than 2,250,000 in one acre; 他估计每英亩草坪里有225万多只蜘蛛。 27. that is something like 6,000,000 spiders of different kinds on a football pitch. 这就是说，在一个足球场上约有600万只不同种类的蜘蛛。 28. Spiders are busy for at least half the year in killing insects. 蜘蛛至少有半年在忙于吃昆虫。 29. It is impossible to make more than the wildest guess at how many they kill, 它们一年中消灭了多少昆虫，我们简直无法猜测， 30. but they are hungry creatures, not content with only three meals a day. 它们是吃不饱的动物，不满意一日三餐。 31. It has been estimated that the weight of all the insects destroyed by spiders in Britain in one year would be greater than the total weight of all the human beings in the country. 据估计，在英国蜘蛛一年里所消灭昆虫的重量超过这个国家人口的总重量。 $课文3 马特霍恩山区人 32. Modern alpinists try to climb mountains by a route which will give them good sport,

新概念英语第四册第二十单元课文原文

新概念英语第四册第二十单元课文原文 Lesson 20 Snake poison 蛇毒How it came about that snakes manufactured poison is a mystery. Over the periods their saliva, a mild, digestive juice like our own, was converted into a poison that defies analysis even today. It was not forced upon them by the survival competition; they could have caught and lived on prey without using poison just as the thousands of non-poisonous snakes still do. Poison to a snake is merely a luxury; it enables it to get its food with very little effort, no more effort than one bite. And why only snakes ? Cats, for instance, would be greatly helped; no running rights with large, fierce rats or tussles with grown rabbits just a bite and no more effort needed. In fact it would be an assistance to all the carnivorae--though it would be a two-edged weapon -When they fought each other. But, of the vertebrates, unpredictable Nature selected only snakes (and one lizard). One wonders also why Nature, with some snakes concocted poison of such extreme potency. In the conversion of saliva into poison one might suppose that a fixed process took place. It did not; some

新概念英语第四册课文翻译：Lesson9

新概念英语第四册课文翻译：Lesson9【课文】 Alfred the Great acted as his own spy, visiting Danish camps disguised as a minstrel. In those days wandering minstrels were welcome everywhere. They were not fighting men, and their harp was their passport. Alfred had learned many of their ballads in his youth, and could vary his programme with acrobatic tricks and simple conjuring. While Alfred's little army slowly began to gather at Athelney, the king himself set out to penetrate the camp of Guthrum, the commander of the Danish invaders. These had settled down for the winter at Chippenham： thither Alfred went. He noticed at once that discipline was slack： the Danes had the self-confidence of conquerors, and their security precautions were casual. They lived well, on the proceeds of raids on neighbouring regions. There they collected women as well as food and drink, and a life of ease had made them soft. Alfred stayed in the camp a week before he returned to Athelney. The force there assembled was trivial compared with the Danish horde. But Alfred had deduced that the Danes were no longer fit for prolonged battle： and that their commissariat had no organization, but depended on irregular raids. So, faced with the Danish advance, Alfred did not risk open battle but harried the enemy. He was constantly on the move, drawing the Danes after him. His patrols halted the raiding parties： hunger assailed the Danish army. Now Alfred

新概念英语第四册课文word版

Lesson1 We can read of things that happened 5,000 years ago in the Near East, where people first learned to write. But there are some parts of the world where even now people cannot write. The only way that they can preserve their history is to recount it as sagas--legends handed down from one generation of story-tellers to another. These legends are useful because they can tell us something about migrations of people who lived long ago, but none could write down what they did. Anthropologists wondered where the remote ancestors of the Polynesian peoples now living in the Pacific Islands came from. The sagas of these people explain that some of them came from Indonesia about 2,000 years ago. But the first people who were like ourselves lived so long ago that even their sagas, if they had any, are forgotten. So archaeologists have neither history nor legends to help them to find out where the first 'modern men' came from.

新概念英语4-课文

NEW CONCEPT ENGLISH(IV) (new version) 2 Lesson1Finding Fossil man We can read of things that happened5,000years ago in the Near East,where people first learned to write.But there are some parts of the world where even now people cannot write.The only w ay that they can preserve their history is torecount it as sagas--legends handed down from one generation of story-tellersto another.These legends are useful because they can tell us somethin g aboutmigrations of people who lived long ago,but none could write down what they did. Anthropologists wondered where the remote ancestors of the Polynesianpeoples now living in th e Pacific Islands came from.The sagas of these peopleexplain that some of them came from Indo nesia about2,000years ago.But the first people who were like ourselves lived so long ago that ev en theirsagas,if they had any,are forgotten.So archaeologists have neither history nor legends to help them to find out where the first'modern men'came from.Fortunately,however,ancient me n made tools of stone,especially flint,becausethis is easier to shape than other kinds.They may also have used woodand skins,but these have rotted away.Stone does not decay,and so the tool s oflong ago have remained when even the bones of the men who made them have disappeared without trace. 3 Lesson2Spare that spider Why,you may wonder,should spiders be our friends?Because they destroy somany insects,and insects include some of the greatest enemies of the humanrace.Insects would make it impossible for us to live in the world;they woulddevour all our crops and kill our flocks and herds,if it were not for the protectionwe get from insect-eating animals.We owe a lot to the birds and beasts wh o eat insects but all of them put together kill only a fraction of the number destroyed by spiders. Moreover,unlike some of the other insect eaters,spiders never dothe least harm to us or our bel ongings.Spiders are not insects,as many people think,nor even nearly related to them.One can t ell the difference almost at a glance for a spider always has eight legsand an insect never more th an six.How many spiders are engaged in this work on our behalf?One authority on spiders made a census of the spiders in a grass field in the south of England,andhe estimated that there were more than2,250,000in one acre,that is something like6,000,000spiders of different kinds on a f ootball pitch.Spiders are busy for at least half the year in killing insects.It is impossible to make more than the wildest guess at how many they kill,but they are hungry creatures,not content wi th only three meals a day.It has been estimated that the weight of all the insects destroyed by spi ders in Britain in one year would be greater than the total weight of all the human beings in the c ountry.T.H.GILLESPIE Spare that Spider from The Listene Lesson3Matterhorn man Modern alpinists try to climb mountains by a route which will give them goodsport,and the more