A
Anonymous
Guest
i got a problem to translate this writing.
it's hard to understand.
this writing is used for test. so teacher asked me to summarize in 300 letters.
greatest enrichment the scientific culture could give us is a moral one. Among scientists, deep-natured men know that the individual human condition is tragic; for all its triumphs and joys, the essence of it is loneliness and the end death. But what they will not admit is that, because the individual condition is tragic, therefore the social condition must be tragic, too. Because a men must die, that is no excuse for his dying before his time and after a servile life. The impulse behind the scientists drives them to limit the area of tragedy, to take nothing as tragic that can conceivably lie within men's will. The scientists have nothing but contempt for those representatives of the traditional culture who use a deep insight into man's fate to abscure the social truth, just to hang on to a few perks. Dostoevsky sucking up to the Chancellor Pobedonostsev, who thought the only thing wrong with slavery was that there was not enough of it; Ezra Pound broadcasting for the Fascists; Faulkner giving sentimental reasons for treating Negroes as a different species. They are all symptoms of the deepest temptation of the clerks--which is to say: "Because man's condition is tragic, everyone ought to stay in their place, with mine as it happens somewhere near the top." From that particular temptation, made up of defeat, self-indulgence, and moral vanity, the scientific culture is almost totally immune. It is that kind of moral health of the scientists which, in the last few years, the rest of us have needed most.
is this about the virtue of scientific culture not affected by the general moral at the time?
the sentences inderline aren't well understood by me. please answer me.
i'm in urgent need of your hep
it's hard to understand.
this writing is used for test. so teacher asked me to summarize in 300 letters.
greatest enrichment the scientific culture could give us is a moral one. Among scientists, deep-natured men know that the individual human condition is tragic; for all its triumphs and joys, the essence of it is loneliness and the end death. But what they will not admit is that, because the individual condition is tragic, therefore the social condition must be tragic, too. Because a men must die, that is no excuse for his dying before his time and after a servile life. The impulse behind the scientists drives them to limit the area of tragedy, to take nothing as tragic that can conceivably lie within men's will. The scientists have nothing but contempt for those representatives of the traditional culture who use a deep insight into man's fate to abscure the social truth, just to hang on to a few perks. Dostoevsky sucking up to the Chancellor Pobedonostsev, who thought the only thing wrong with slavery was that there was not enough of it; Ezra Pound broadcasting for the Fascists; Faulkner giving sentimental reasons for treating Negroes as a different species. They are all symptoms of the deepest temptation of the clerks--which is to say: "Because man's condition is tragic, everyone ought to stay in their place, with mine as it happens somewhere near the top." From that particular temptation, made up of defeat, self-indulgence, and moral vanity, the scientific culture is almost totally immune. It is that kind of moral health of the scientists which, in the last few years, the rest of us have needed most.
is this about the virtue of scientific culture not affected by the general moral at the time?
the sentences inderline aren't well understood by me. please answer me.
i'm in urgent need of your hep
