- 締切済み
和訳お願いします。
Let us imagine an absolutely unbiased observer on another planet, perhaps on Mars, is examining human behavior on Earth, with the aid of a telescope whose magnification is too small to enable him to discern individuals and follow their separate behavior, but large enough for him to observe occurences such as migration of peoples, wars and similar great historical events.He would never gain the impression that human behavior was dectated by intelligence, still less by responsible morality. If we suppose our outside observerto be a being of pure reason, lacking instincts himself and unaware of the way in which all instincts in general and aggression in particular can go wrong, he would be at a complete loss how to explain history at all.Thus, the phenomena of history do not have responsible cases.It is a mere commonplace to say that they are caused by human nature.Unreasoning and unreasonable human nature causes two nations to compete, though no economic necessity compels them to do so; it induces two political parties or religious with amazingly similar programs of salvation to fight each other bitterly and it forces an Alexander or a Napoleon to sacrifice millions of lives in his attempt to unite the world under his rule.We have been taught to regard some of the persons who have committed these and similar absurdities with respect, even as "great" people, and we are all so accustomed to these phenomena that most of us fail to realize how stupid and undesirable the historical mass behavior of humanity actually is.
- Xackt
- お礼率61% (38/62)
- 英語
- 回答数2
- ありがとう数3
- みんなの回答 （2）
- 専門家の回答
みんなの回答
- SPS700
- ベストアンサー率46% (15295/33014)
ここに、ある惑星、例えば火星の、全然偏見のない観測者、が、望遠鏡で地球上の人間の行動を見ているとする。 その望遠鏡の倍率は個人個人を見分け、個別の行動を追従できるほど高くはないが、移民など人の動きとか、戦争と言った大きな歴史的な出来事は読み取れるほどのものであるとする。 そうすると、人類の行動は、責任ある道徳観どころか、理性に基づくものであるという印象を受けないであろう。 もし、外界の観察者が、彼自身本能に欠け、一般的な本能すべてが、特に攻撃性が、間違った方向に進む可能性を知らず、純粋に理性の生物であるとすれば、彼は地球人の歴史は一体どう説明出来るか途方に暮れるだろう。 かくして歴史の現象は責任ある説明を持たない。人間の性格が、その根源だと言うのは単にありふれた説明に過ぎない。 人間の非理性的な、無責任な性質から、別にそうする経済的な必然性がないのに、二つの国家が競争する。 そのため（＝人間の性格にため）二つの政党が戦い、驚くほど似通った救済企画で宗教が争い、世界を自分の支配下に纏めようと、アレキサンダーとかナポレオンに何百万の命を奪わせる。 我々は、この、あるいはこれに似た馬鹿げたことを成し遂げた人物を尊敬し、「偉大なる」人々とさえ見るように教えられて来た。 そして我々は、皆こう言う現象に慣れてしまっているため、歴史上の人類の群れとしての行動が如何に愚かで望ましくないかに気づかないのである。
- Him-hymn
- ベストアンサー率66% (3489/5257)
火星かどこかの別の惑星上で全く何の偏見もない観察者が、個々人を判別するには倍率が小さ過ぎるけれども、人の集団移住とか、戦争、あるいはそれに類する歴史的な大事件の事象を観察するには十分な倍率の望遠鏡の力を借りて観察していることを想像してみよう。 観察者は、人間の行動というのは、知性によって決まるのでも、あるいはまして責任ある道徳感できまるのでもないという印象を得るだろう。 もし、外部の観察者が純粋な理性を持ち、直感力に欠け、たいていはあらゆる直感、とりわけ攻撃性は間違い得るということを分っていないという場合を想定すると、その観察者は歴史を説明するに完全に言葉を失うことだろう。 このように、歴史の事象というのは、確実な言い分があるわけではないのである。 そういったものは、人間の性（さが）によるものなのだと言うことは、ありきたりのことに過ぎない。 経済的にはそうさせる必要がないにもかかわらず、理性を欠いた、不条理な人間性が二つの国家を競争へと追いやる。 そこには、２つの政党や驚くほど似通った救いの段取りで激しく戦う宗教というものも含まれるし、アケキサンダーやナポレオンが世界を自分の支配下に置いて統合しようとして何百万人もの人の命を犠牲にすることも含まれる。 我々は「偉大なる人物」とまで言って、こういうことをやりのける、あるいは似た愚行を犯す人たちを尊敬を持って扱うように教えられてきた。そして、われわれはみなこうした現象に慣れ過ぎていて、我々はほとんど、人間活動における歴史的な大衆行動がいかに愚かで有害かに気づくのに失敗している。 以上でいかがでしょうか？
お礼
回答ありがとうございます。助かりました。
関連するQ&A
- (2)(3)を和訳[2]～[4]の問に答えて下さい
(1)Let us imagine an absolutely unbiased observer on another planet, perhaps on Mars, is examining human behavior on Earth, with the aid of a telescope whose magnification is too small to enable him to discern individuals and follow their separate behavior, but large enough for him to observe occurences such as migration of peoples, wars and similar great historical events.He would never gain the impression that human behavior was dectated by intelligence, still less by responsible morality. If we suppose our outside observerto be a being of pure reason, lacking instincts himself and unaware of the way in which all instincts in general and aggression in particular can go wrong, he would be at a complete loss how to explain history at all.Thus, the phenomena of history do not have responsible cases.It is a mere commonplace to say that they are caused by human nature.Unreasoning and unreasonable human nature causes two nations to compete, though no economic necessity compels them to do so; it induces two political parties or religious with amazingly similar programs of salvation to fight each other bitterly and it forces an Alexander or a Napoleon to sacrifice millions of lives in his attempt to unite the world under his rule.We have been taught to regard some of the persons who have committed these and similar absurdities with respect, even as "great" people, and we are all so accustomed to these phenomena that most of us fail to realize how stupid and undesirable the historical mass behavior of humanity actually is. (2)Having realized [2][this], however, we cannot escape the question why reasonable beings do behave so un reasonably.Undeniably, there must be [3][superlatively strong factors] which are able to overcome the commands of individual reason so completely which are not influenced by experience and learning.As hegel said, "What experience and history teach us is this - that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles derived from it." (3)All of [4][these amazing paradoxes], however, find an unconstrained explanation, falling nto place like the piece of a jigsaw puzzle, if one assumes that human behavior, and particularly human social behavior, far from being determined by reason and cultural tradition alone, is still subject to all the laws prevailing in instinctive behavior. [2][this]が指す日本語の内容を説明しなさい。 [3][superlatively strong factors]と最も関係の深い語を本文中から１語で抜き出しなさい。 [4][these amazing paradoxes]の内容を簡潔に表している表現を本文中から抜き出しなさい。 (1)は訳さなくて良いです。(2)(3)は和訳お願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 和訳をお願いします！
In particular we observed a masculinization of female behavior in two behavioral categories (play with females and sociosexual exploration), an effect probably mediated by the estrogenic activity of BPA in the CNS. These long-lasting effects of BPA could have important consequences at individual and population levels. Key words: bisphenol A, environmental estrogens, play behavior, rat, sex differences, social behavior. ちょっと長いのですがよろしくお願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 和訳教えてください
A particular branch of knowledge is chosen, whether about the physical universe as in the sciences or about man himself as in the humanities. The aim of this study is not just to learn new facts, but to relate them to each other in an ordered whole. It is not enough to know things, like a walking encyclopedia. We have to aim at that understanding and wisdom which is the fine fruit of a university education. Thus in the sciences we learn how to draw general conclusions from various facts; and in the humanities we obtain a deeper understanding of human life from the reading of various authors. 長い英文ですがよろしくお願いします
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 和訳をお願いします
和訳をお願いします 1)It is a fundamental way of thinking, an essential means of becoming and remaining human. 2)Human being have always joined in groups to imagine how best to live and help one another carry out the plan. 3)The essential function of human community is to arrive at some agreement on what we need,what life ought to be, and then teach our children so that they can go on the way we think is the right way. --- 単語は調べたのですが文全体の意味が理解できません。 よろしくおねがいします
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
Now, in answer to this objection, I have only to say that no one can have a more lively appreciation than myself of the supreme importance of experimental or historical veri fication, in all cases where the possibility of such verification is attainable. But in cases where such verification is not attainable, what are we to do ? We may clearly do either of two things. We may either neglect to investigate the sub ject at all, or we may Jo our best to investigate it by employ ing the only means of .investigation which are at our disposal. Of these two courses there can be no doubt which is the one that the scientific spirit prompts. The true scientific spirit desires to examine everything, and if in any case it is refused the best class of instruments wherewith to conduct the examination, it will adopt the next best that are available. In such cases science clearly cannot be forwarded by neglect ing to use these instruments, while her cause may be greatly advanced by using them with care. This is proved by the fict that, in the science of psychology, nearly all the con siderable advances which have been made, have been made, not by experiment, but by observing mental phenomena and reasoning from these phenomena deductively. In such cases, therefore, the true scientific spirit prompts us, not to throw away deductive reasoning where it is so frequently the onlyinstrument available, but rather to cany it with us, and to use it as not abusing it.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願いします
訳お願いします This prospect horrifies some and exhilarates others. Yet the question of whether or not we should make improvements to human beings and possibly to human nature is the most vital, urgent and portentous of all the questions facing us. Now is the time to try to answer this question, because many recent discoveries are beginning to make the prospect of radical human enhancement a reality. Stem cell research, which may lead to human tissue repairing itself; new genes resistant to cancer and HIV; new drugs that improve concentration and memory or enable us to function for much longer periods without sleep; braincomputer interfaces that may harness the power and memory of computers, perhaps by the insertion of tiny “nanobots” into the human brain; and techniques that will radically extend life expectancy from tens to hundreds of years---these are all on today's scientific agenda and some are already in use. Some of these possibilities are so radical that the creatures benefiting from them would no longer be “human”, in the way we think of it. The end of humanity then is not in itself a concern; making sure that those who replace us are better than we are is a huge and timely concern. One of the most dramatic and important of the new technologies that will produce new creatures is synthetic biology. When people talk about synthetic biology and syntheic life, they may have in mind Frankenstein scientists in the lab, or perhaps some bubbling vat of biochemical “primeval soup” out of which will arise either a monster or a perfect specimen of humanity. よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この文章を和訳してください
Ｉｔ is only in the present dimension of time-that which lies between past and future,between what has already happened what is yet to comethat freedom and the priority of the political for the human world fully emerge in Arendt's thought.For her the political is by no means the be-all and end-all of human experience. It is distinct from “what we can do and create in the singular: in isolation like the artist,in solitude like the philosopher,in the inherently worldless relationship between human beings as it exists in love and sometimes in friendship.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
Now assuredly we have here a most important issue, and as it is one the discussion of which will constitute a large element of my work, it is perhaps desirable that I should state at the outset the manner in which I propose to deal with it . The question, then, as to whether or not human intelli gence has been evolved from animal intelligence can only be dealt with scientifically by comparing the one with the other, in order to ascertain the points wherein they agree and the points wherein they differ. Now there can be no doubt that when this is done, the difference between the mental faculties of the most intelligent animal and the mental faculties of the lowest savage[savage=wild beast] is seen to be so vast, that the hypothesis of their being so nearly allied as Mr. Darwin's teaching implies, appears at first sight absurd. And, indeed, it is not until we have become convinced that the theory of Evolution can alone afford an explanation of the facts of human anatomy that we are prepared to seek for a similar explanation of the facts of human psychology. But wide as is the difference between the mind of a man and the mind of a brute, we must remember that the question is one, not as to degree, but as to kind ; and therefore that our task, as serious enquirers after truth, is calmly and honestly to examine the character of the difference which is presented, in order to determine whether it is really beyond the bounds of rational credibility that the enormous interval which now separates these two divisions of mind can ever have been bridged over, by numberless inter mediate gradations, during the untold ages of the past.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願いします！！
In higher vertebrates, estrogens exert anorganizational effect on the central nervous system (CNS) during the perinatal phase of development, and estrogen is the main hormone responsible for sex differences in behavior (1,2). There is great concern that estrogenic pollutants, at low concentrations, may mimic the action of estrogens on the CNS at an early age and produce long-lasting or irreversible effects on behavior (3–5). Bisphenol A (BPA) is a compound widely used in the food industry for polycarbonate bottles and linings of cans, as well as in dentistry as a hardener for sealants and for tooth lacquering. It is known to have an estrogenic action (6–8). Low doses of BPA administered perinatally can modify explorative behavior and anxiety in rats (9) and can advance puberty in female mice (10), although some effects are controversial (11). These observations indicate the importance of studying the effects of this compound on complex behaviors expressed during puberty. ビスフェノールについてのものです。よろしくお願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 和訳をお願いしたいです。
Ever since the advent of science in the seventeenth century , we have rejected mythology as a product of superstitious and primitive minds . Only now are we coming to a fuller appreciation of the nature and role of myth in human history . In human these five lectures , the distinguished social anthropologist , Claude Lévi-Strauss , offers the insights of a lifetime spent interpreting myths and tyring to discover their significance for human understanding . Entitled ❛ Myth and Meaning , ❜ the talks were broadcast on the CBC Radio series , Ideas , in December 1977 . They were assembled from a series of lengthy conversations between Professor Lévi-Strauss and Carole Orr Jerome , producer in the Paris bureau of the CBC . The programs were organized by Geraldine Sherman , executive producer of Ideas , and produced by Bernie Lucht . The lectures have been expanded for publication to include some material which , for reasons of time , could not be used in the original droadcasts . The spoken words have been minimally edited to make xviii A Note from the Publisher them conform to the more rigid conventions of print . Carole Orr Jerome's main questions to Professor Lévi-Strauss , which helped shape the course of the lectures , were as follows : CHAPTER ONE Many of your readers think that you are trying to bring us back to mythical thought , that we have lost something very precious and that we must try to gain it back . Does this mean that science and modern thought must go out the window and that we must go back to mythical thought ? What is structuralism ? How did you arrive at the idea that structural thought was a possibility ? Is it necessary to have order and rules to have meaning ? Can you have meaning in chaos ? What do you mean that order is preferable to disorder ?
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
回答ありがとうございます。