I would answer c.
This passage is from Patric Henry's Patriotic Speech.
It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth―to know the worst and to provide for it.
Q. By "temporal salvation," the writer most likely means __________.
a. timely concern
b. spiritual deliverance
c. nationalistic aspirations
d. safety in their daily lives
I'm a bit confused. I went with 'd. safety in their daily lives," but OA says it's wrong. It says instead 'b. spiritual deliverance" is right. That question seems difficult. I've thought that 'temporal salvation' is paraphrased into 'safety in their daily lives,' because the word 'temporal' means 'secular, or relating to real physical worlds rather than religious or spiritual worlds.' Anyway, as in 'b. spiritual deliverance,' the word 'spiritual' contradicts the word 'temporal,' and thus it seems to me clearly wrong, although 'deliverance' means 'salvation.'
What do you think of that? I'd like to hear your opinion.
I would answer c.
I agree, C.
B. is definitely wrong, but I agree D is possible given the context. The boys are right about C being the least doubtful.
Thank you for your explanation. This question was difficult, and many of other people have chosen 'B' or 'D', with some doubt. However, your explanation clears me of some doubt, and I get to understand this exercise.
Anyway, I have a question. The word 'nationalistic' means, according to Macmillan English Dictionary, extremely proud of your own nation and believing that it is better than other nations, and according to Cambridge Dictionary, having too much pride in your own country. Also, many other dictionaries define the word as that meaning -- even Oxford Dictionary shows that the word is disapproving. As you can see, these dictionaries don't show the meaning of, pertaining to, or noting a political group advocating or fighting for national independence, a strong national government, etc. by Dictionary.com Based on the Random House Dictionary. As a student studying English, I get to be confused a lot. The former dictionaries mentioned is also great dictionaries used worldwide, but why does this situation happen? That is, your answer could be incorrect in accordance with the defination of the former dictionaries, but also could be correct according to the defination of the latter dictionary.
Nationalism is still the primary basis on which the world and its people are divided. Almost all human beings belong to one nation or another. That's called citizenship.
I cannot vote in any nation's elections but Australia's.
I need a passport to visit other nations. If I do visit other countries I have to obey the laws of that nation.
I only pay Australian taxes.
If I went to war, I'd have to fight for Australia and her allies.
If I want to compete in the Olympic games, I cannot do it as an individual, or as a member of my race or religion, or any other attribute.
The United Nations is based on the concept of separate nations.
There is no land on earth that does not 'belong' to a nation. There are (almost) no people who don't 'belong' to a nation.
There is no sign of nationalism weakening. If anything, it has become more popular since the end of empires early last century; and since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. For every example of nations re-uniting (eg. East and West Germany), there are ten separatist movements calling for autonomy.
Nationalism is a reality.
My comment was not a legalistic one, but morally and ethically formed.
If you have ever taught Korean students, you will know that they are often surprised by how little (to them) attachment and passion we have for our own countries. They are generally far more passionate about the idea of their nation that we are in the West.
For example, if I hear an American fashion model was abducted by the Yakuza in Japan, and the next day that a Canadian fashion model the same age has been abducted by the same criminal group, I feel equally concerned by both bits of news.
When I say that we are citizens of the world, it is slightly tongue in cheek, but this is what I mean: I regard all human beings as being equally closely related to me, and don't see the world in a Canadian/Foreigner dichotomy. I think many Western people would agree with me.
If you ask any Korean students how they would feel if an Australian model was murdered in Melbourne, and how that would compare to a Korean model suffering the same fate in Sydney, I think you'd be surprised by the over-the-top emotion in the latter case, as compared to the relative indifference in the former.
P.S. Did you really think I didn't know that "Almost all human beings belong to one nation or another. That's called citizenship."
I'd guess you've had one too many Fosters tonight!
Your reply seemed like a serious answer to the OP's confusion, saying that the western definition of "nationalism" had derogatory or pejorative connotations. It wasn't obvious to me that you were being facetious, and I assume it would be even less obvious to a Korean person.
Right, I do think we regard strong nationalism as a character flaw nowadays, to the extent that people who are extremely emotional about national identity are about as bad as religious extremists. I think the Korean student was genuinely surprised by this.