D

As a human being you may have the choice of three basic attitudes towards life. You may treat life with the philosophy (哲学) of the vegetable, in which case your life will include being born, eating, drinking, sleeping, marrying, growing old and dying.

The second basic attitude is to look at life as if it were a business. A great many so-called successful men and women believe that life is a business. If you believe so, your first question of life, naturally, is " What do I get out of it? " " How much is this worth to me?" In a word, based on this attitude, happi­ness becomes a matter of successful competition. The great ma­jority of human beings today look at life as if it were a busi­ness.

The third attitude toward life is the way of the artist. Here the basic philosophy is "What can I put into it?". They value cooperation and contribution. This point of view has been proved by history; for history remembers best those who have contributed most richly to the interests of their fellow-men. The more we investigate(调查),the more we become certain that the artistic attitude is the only one which goes with human happiness.

13. From the passage we know people who take the second life attitude ________.

A. are mostly businessmen

B. think of getting the interests (利益) first

C. find their happiness from hard work            

D. take competition as their whole life

14. People who are best remembered by history are probably

A. those living on vegetables             B. successful men       

C. artists                                        D. businessmen

15. We may infer from this passage that ________.

A. some people are living only on vegetables

B. the artistic attitude is accepted by most people

C. the writer prefers the third life attitude

D. artists do most for the society in order to be remembered longer than others

E

The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.

Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里学家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 下一页