Eudaimonia is an Ancient Greek word, particularly stressed by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle, which deserves far more attention than it has because it corrects the shortfalls (缺失)in one of the most central, but troubling words in our modem language: happiness.
When we nowadays try to clearly express the purpose of our lives,it is the word “happiness” that we commonly turn to. We tell ourselves and others that the most important principle for our jobs, our relationships and the conduct of our day-to-day lives is the pursuit of happiness. It sounds like an innocent enough idea, but too much reliance on the term means that we frequently unfairly tend to quit or, at least, heavily question a great many challenging but worthwhile situations. The Ancient Greeks did not believe that the purpose of life was to be happy; they proposed that it was to achieve Eudaimonia, a word which has been best translated as “fulfilment”.
What distinguishes happiness from fulfilment is pain. It is very possible to be fulfilled and—at the same time—under pressure, suffering physically or mentally, overburdened and, quite frequently, in an irritable (易怒的)mood. This is a slight psychological difference that is hard for the word “happiness” to capture, for it’s tricky to speak of being happy yet unhappy, or happy yet suffering. However, such a combination is readily accommodated within the respected and noble-sounding idea of Eudaimonia.
The word encourages us to trust that many of life’s most worthwhile projects will sometimes be in conflict with contentment, and yet will be worth pursuing. Properly exploring our professional talents, managing a household, keeping a relationship going, creating a new business venture or engaging in politics... none of these goals are likely to leave us cheerful and grinning on a daily basis. They will, in fact, involve us in all manner of challenges that will deeply exhaust and weaken us, provoke (激怒)and wound us. And yet we will perhaps, at the end of our lives, still feel that the tasks were worth undertaking. Through them, we’ll have achieved something deeper and more interesting than happiness.
With the word Eudaimonia in mind, we can stop imagining that we are aiming for a pain-free existence—and then blaming ourselves unfairly for being in a bad mood. We’ll know that we are trying to do something far more important than smile all the time: we're striving to do justice to our full human potential.
1.What do we know about “Eudaimonia” from the passage?A.It was first created by two Greek philosophers. |
B.It has received a lot of attention from the public. |
C.It still has some shortfalls that need to be corrected. |
D.It was regarded as the purpose of life in ancient Greece. |
A.is the opposite of fulfillment |
B.is free from physical or mental pain |
C.stresses the psychological difference |
D.serves as a respected and noble life goal |
A.aiming for happiness may lead to wrong self-blaming |
B.goals that wound and weaken us result in happiness |
C.challenges leading to contentment are worth undertaking |
D.feeling fulfilled means we should avoid tough situations |
A.find fulfillment with all efforts | B.seek for a pain-free existence |
C.keep optimistic whatever happens | D.balance happiness and suffering |
Expressive arts therapy is a form of therapy that uses dance, drama, music, poetry, and art to enhance one's overall well-being. The arts are used to let go,
People have been using the arts as tools for
Through the arts, people can
Expressive arts therapists are professionally
A.admit | B.express | C.examine | D.trust |
A.explaining | B.proving | C.healing | D.judging |
A.recognized | B.relieved | C.affected | D.controlled |
A.results | B.experiences | C.causes | D.questions |
A.angry | B.bored | C.strict | D.free |
A.secret | B.technique | C.difficulty | D.process |
A.when | B.which | C.what | D.where |
A.as to | B.or rather | C.rather than | D.other than |
A.communicate | B.produce | C.reject | D.test |
A.offered | B.shown | C.guided | D.driven |
A.create | B.feel | C.reduce | D.recall |
A.tired | B.proud | C.afraid | D.unaware |
A.hired | B.served | C.awarded | D.trained |
A.basic | B.enough | C.impossible | D.strange |
A.finally | B.typically | C.luckily | D.hardly |
A.visit | B.life | C.education | D.money |
A.If | B.Although | C.Unless | D.Since |
A.unequal | B.friendly | C.known | D.similar |
A.goal | B.profession | C.clinic | D.theory |
A.unwelcome | B.seasonal | C.positive | D.cultural |
Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching one has been the inevitable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.
It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once considered suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.
We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament (装饰) to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define ‘journalism’ as ‘a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’.”
Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.
Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.
1.Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the first two paragraphs?A.English-language newspapers with more arts coverage sell well. |
B.Young readers nowadays enjoy reading high-quality arts criticism. |
C.The criticism published in the 20th century lacked learned contents. |
D.There were more arts reviews in English-language newspapers in the past. |
A.The newsprint was too cheap to make profits. |
B.Not all writers were capable of journalistic writing. |
C.Arts criticism was removed from the print newspapers. |
D.Writers are likely to be tempted into journalism. |
A.Because he mainly wrote essays on the game of cricket. |
B.Because people cast doubt on his reputation as a knight. |
C.Because his music criticism failed to appeal to readers nowadays. |
D.Because his works were quite amateur rather than professional. |
A.The Distinguished Critics in Memory | B.The Lost Horizon in Newspapers |
C.The Shortage of Literary Geniuses | D.The Newspapers of the Good Old Days |
Albert Einstein’s 1915 masterpiece “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” is the first and still the best introduction to the subject, and I recommend it as such to students. But it probably wouldn’t be publishable in a scientific journal today.
Why not? After all, it would pass with flying colours the tests of correctness and significance. And while popular belief holds that the paper was incomprehensible to its first readers, in fact many papers in theoretical physics are much more difficult.
As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “There was a time when the newspapers said that only 12 men understood the theory of relativity. I do believe there might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than 12.”
No, the problem is its style. It starts with a leisurely philosophical discussion of space and time and then continues with an exposition of known mathematics. Those two sections, which would be considered extraneous today, take up half the paper. Worse, there are zero citations of previous scientists’ work, nor are there any graphics. Those features might make a paper not even get past the first editors.
A similar process of professionalization has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Requests for research time at major observatories or national laboratories are more rigidly structured. And anything involving work with human subjects, or putting instruments in space, involves piles of paperwork.
We see it also in the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Nobel Prize of high school science competitions. In the early decades of its 78-year history, the winning projects were usually the sort of clever but naive, amateurish efforts one might expect of talented beginners working on their own. Today, polished work coming out of internships(实习) at established laboratories is the norm.
These professionalizing tendencies are a natural consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardization and system make it easier to manage the rapid flow of papers, applications and people. But there are serious downsides. A lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops(繁文缛节), and outsiders face entry barriers at every turn.
Of course, Einstein would have found his way to meeting modern standards and publishing his results. Its scientific core wouldn’t have changed, but the paper might not be the same taste to read.
1.According to Richard Feynman, Einstein’s 1915 paper ________.A.was a classic in theoretical physics |
B.turned out to be comprehensible |
C.needed further improvement |
D.attracted few professionals |
A.Unrealistic. | B.Irrelevant. |
C.Unattractive. | D.Imprecise. |
A.The application of research findings. |
B.The principle of scientific research. |
C.The selection of young talents. |
D.The evaluation of laboratories. |
A.What makes Einstein great? |
B.Will science be professionalized? |
C.Could Einstein get published today? |
D.How will modern science make advances? |
Global Cooperation
In the 21st century, we’ve seen a new trend that is pushing the boundaries of human invention and innovation—global cooperation. Scientific and technical research and development is now so complicated that no one scientist can know it all. So, increasingly, innovation is coming from the combining of cutting-edge expertise (专业知识) from different scientific fields.
There are now over 8, 000 scientific journals worldwide and it is impossible to be an expert in all areas. Therefore, in this highly specialized world, scientists, medics and engineers have to cooperate in order to innovate. Professor Bob Langer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has made significant breakthroughs in the field of biomedical engineering. But he hasn’t done it on his own. He has invited experts from around the world in different fields to form a global team to design new substances which can go inside the body, deliver medicines and then dissolve. Also at MIT, when Cesar Harada heard about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, he quit his dream job there and tried to develop a more efficient way to remove the oil. But rather than focusing on profit, he decided to ‘open-source’ the design. He shared his own ideas on the web for free and then got experts from all around the world to contribute ideas and even donations. Thanks to this free, not-for-profit way of sharing ideas and intellectual property on the internet, a boat capable of cleaning oil quickly came into being. Obviously, international cooperation based on sharing information freely has produced innovative approaches to solving problems.
It appears that the days of brilliant individuals working in their garages on their own are over. Global teams with a united purpose building on everyone’s expertise can collectively do far more than one brilliant individual. Today’s world calls for global cooperators, sharers, and not protectors of ideas.
How is everything going? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yours,
Li Hua
Yours,
Li Hua
Transition. It’s a pleasant word and a calming concept. It means going surely and sweetly from somewhere present to somewhere future. Unless, that is, it is newspapers’ ‘transition’ to the
Just look at the latest print circulation figures. The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and many of the rest are down overall between 8% and 10% year-on-year, but their websites go ever higher.
All of that may well be true, depending on timing, geography and more.
One is the magazine world, both in the UK and in the US. It ought to be
As for news and current affairs magazines — which you’d expect to find in the eye of the digital storm — they had a 8.4% increase to report. In short, on both sides of the Atlantic, although some magazine areas went down, many showed rapid growth.
You can discover a
So if sales in that area have fallen so little, perhaps the
Already 360 US papers—including most of the biggest and best — have built paywalls around their products. However, the best way of attracting a paying readership appears to be a deal that offers the print copy and digital access as some kind of
Of course this huge difference isn’t
A.publishing | B.online | C.ideal | D.unknown |
A.On the other hand | B.After all | C.To begin with | D.For instance |
A.stop | B.exist | C.emerge | D.fit |
A.regulated | B.advancing | C.collapsing | D.minimized |
A.solid | B.simple | C.creative | D.changeable |
A.cultural | B.common | C.scientific | D.similar |
A.later | B.harder | C.clearer | D.slower |
A.all | B.neither | C.both | D.either |
A.service | B.system | C.crisis | D.figure |
A.right | B.vague | C.designed | D.mixed |
A.made up | B.told apart | C.took over | D.held on |
A.joint | B.mysterious | C.modern | D.complex |
A.In other words | B.On the contrary | C.What’s more | D.Even so |
A.new | B.sad | C.big | D.good |
A.spared | B.updated | C.noticed | D.edited |