<th id="jklfj"></th>
    <tbody id="jklfj"></tbody>
    <th id="jklfj"></th>
    <progress id="jklfj"></progress>
    <ol id="jklfj"><ruby id="jklfj"><u id="jklfj"></u></ruby></ol>
    <legend id="jklfj"></legend>

    新世紀大學英語-綜合教程4-課文翻譯 聯系客服

    one everyone talks about; to show family and friends you are more than they thought you were. Probably you can list some other reasons, but I think these are reasonably common.

    那么為什么每個人都渴望擁有名譽呢?你渴望么?你渴望許多人都知道你,贊賞你么?你渴望那些伴隨名譽而來的金錢么?你希望被媒體關注你做的每一件事么?不論是公共場合或者是私底下.你希望被他們不停地跟蹤,不停地詢問不停地騷擾么?很明顯, 在美國政壇, 出名就會成為那些反對你人的目標,也會成為媒體的目標. 聲譽給你帶來所有的光環,同時賦予你權利和威望,也讓你變得不像原來的自己.你必須成為公眾心目中的你,而不是真實的你和可能的你.政治家也像表演者一樣, 必須討好自己的觀眾.這就意味著他們只能說一些不是他們本意或者他們也不完全相信的話. 所以相信政治家的人很少也就不足為奇了. 但是我們還沒有回答本段開始提出的問題:為什么每個人都渴望名譽呢? 我突然想到幾個原因: 為了在某些領域彰顯卓越; 為了贏得別人的贊美和喜愛; 為了成為每個人談到的話題; 又或者為了向親人和朋友證明自己能夠超乎他們的想象. 或許你也可列舉其他的原因,但是我認為通常都是這些原因.

    Is it possible to be famous and to remain true to yourself, the real you? Perhaps, but one is hard pressed to come up with the names of those who have done their thing their way and succeed in the fame game. Many political dissident around the world, in particular, Dawn Aung Suu Kyi of Burma, is a rare exception to the rule that says maintaining unpopular views or unpopular attitudes or approaches in any field will destroy you. The famous Irish writer Oscar Wilde, a very successful writer of stories, poems and plays, was known for his most unusual clothing and

    eccentric behavior, social and sexual. This behavior him to the attention of the mother of a young man Oscar was intimate with and she accused him. He was furious about this and sued the young man’s mother which led to a trial and imprisonment for two years. He remained true to himself and paid a heavy price for it by being ostracized and defamed.

    如果成名,是否還有可能保持最真實的自己呢? 也許可能, 但是一個人很難即能夠以自己的方式做自己喜歡做的事,又在名利場上取得成功. 對于世界上很多持不同政見的的政界人員來說, 一直說一些在任何領域都不受歡迎的觀點或者態度是一件違反政界規則的事情. 但是緬甸的黎明翁山蘇姬是個罕見的例外. 著名的愛爾蘭作家奧斯卡.王德爾是一個很成功的小說家/詩人和劇作家. 他因他最與眾不同的服裝/古怪的行為/反常的社會觀和性觀念而聞名. 但是他的舉止讓他好朋友的母親感到反感,從而被告上了法庭. 他為此感到怒不可歇,并控告這位母親. 如此一來,他也因此遭受了兩年的審訊和關押. 他保持了最真實的自己,但是卻為此付出了沉重的代價,受到社會排斥,聲名盡毀.

    Time magazine of June 17, 1996 devoted a good deal of its issue to discussing people(25 in

    America) who are the most influential in the country in their opinion. They added a short essay on who are the most powerful people in America and no one on the first list appeared on the second list, and strangely enough, none of the people on either list was described as famous, although I think several surely are. Can we really distinguish influential people and powerful people from those who are famous? Maybe, but their list of influence people included Jerry Seinfeld the comedian and TV star, Courtney Love the singer and drug addict whose fame has come largely through her husband Kurt Cobain, the guitarist who committed suicide, and the list includes Oprah Winfrey the talk show host and Calvin Klein the clothing designer. All of these people are famous, but I believe, not very influential in the same that they change the way most of us think or act. In Time magazine’s list we find a Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, who is no more influential or powerful than any of the other 8justices. President Clinton is not considered

    influential (?) but is considered powerful! You decide if you think famous and influential and powerful are closely related, or different.

    .1996年6月17日, <時代>雜志投入了大量的版面來討論誰是民眾心里對美國最具影響力的人. 他們對那位美國最有影響力的人物補充了一篇小傳記. 但是那些在第一份名單中出現的人沒有一個出現在第二份名單里面. 不可思議的是出現在兩份名單中的人沒有一個可以稱得上出名,盡管我認為其中有些人確有聲譽. 但是我們真的能夠區別出那些著名的人物誰是有影響力的人誰是有權力的人嗎?也許,但他們那份有影響力的人的名單中包括喜劇演員和電視明星杰瑞?桑菲爾德以及科特尼.洛芙,她是一名歌手,也是一個吸毒者,并且她是因為她的丈夫而出名的.她的丈夫科特.柯本是一名吉他手, 死于自殺. 除此以外,這份名單也包括脫口秀節目的主持人奧普拉?溫弗瑞,和服裝設計師卡爾文.克萊恩. 所有的這些人物都是有名的,但是我相信,他們對改變我們的思維方式和行為習慣并沒有多大影響力. 在<時代>雜志名單里面我們還發現一位高級法院的法官桑德拉.奧康納. 他比不比其他法官影響力大,也并不比其他法官權力大. 別人并不認為克林頓總統有影響力,但是他們認為他有權力. 知名度/影響力和權力是聯系緊密還是根本就不同,是由你來決定的.

    I believe that fame and celebrity, influence and power, success and failure, reality and illusion are all somehow neatly woven into a seamless fabric we laughingly call reality. I say to those who desperately seek fame and fortune, celebrity: good luck. But what will you do when you have

    caught your tail, your success, your fame? Keep chasing it? If you do catch it, hang on for dear life because falling is not as painful as landing. See you soon famous and almost famous, wayfarers on this unbright, nonlinear planet.

    我相信聲譽和名望, 影響和權力,成功與失敗,真實和虛幻都以某種方式靈活的編織成一張細密的綢布, 我們笑稱為”現實”的那張布. 我對那些拼命地尋求聲譽/名望與財富的人說: 祝你好運. 但是當你抓住了你的尾巴,也就是你的成功和聲望的時候,你將要怎么做? 如果你真的抓住了它, 就拼命地抓住吧,因為掉落并不像攀登一樣痛苦. 希望很快看見你成名,或者是快要成名, 在這顆光明的行星上成句輝煌的旅程.

    T Work, Labor, and Play

    Wystan H. Auden

    This text is taken from The Little, Brown Reader (Third Edition), edited by Marcia Stubbs and Sylvan Barnet. Little, Brown and Company. 1983.

    close

    1RT So far as I know, Miss Hannah Arendt was the first person to

    define the essential difference between work and labor. To be happy, a man must feel, firstly, free and, secondly, important. He cannot be really happy if he is compelled by society to do what he does not enjoy

    doing, or if what he enjoys doing is ignored by society as of no value or importance. In a society where slavery in the strict sense has been abolished, whether what a man does has social value depends on whether he is paid money to do it, but a laborer today can rightly be called a wage slave. A man is a laborer if the job society offers him is of no interest to himself but he is compelled to take it by the necessity of earning a living and supporting his family.

    工作、勞動和玩耍

    威斯坦·H·奧登

    就我所知,漢娜·阿倫特小姐是界定工作和勞動之間本質區別的第一人。一個人要想快樂,第一要有自由感,第二要確信自己有價值。如果社會迫使一個人去做他自己不喜歡的事,或者說,他所喜歡做的事被社會忽視,看作沒有價值或不重要,那他就不會真正快樂。在一個嚴格意義上已廢除奴隸制的社會里,一個人做的事情是否具有社會價值取決于他是否為完成此項工作得到了報酬。然而,今天的勞動者可以被稱為名副其實的工資奴隸。如果社會給一個人提供一份他本人不感興趣的工作,他出于養家糊口的需要不得已才從事這項工作,那這個人就是一個勞動者。close

    2RT The opposite to labor is play. When we play a game, we enjoy

    what we are doing, otherwise we should not play it, but it is a purely

    private activity; society could not care less whether we play it or not.

    與勞動相對的是玩耍。玩游戲時,我們能從中得到樂趣,否則就不會玩這個游戲。但這完全是一種私人的活動,我們玩不玩這個游戲社會是不會關注的。close

    3RT Between labor and play stands work. A man is a worker if he is

    personally interested in the job which society pays him to do; what from the point of view of society is necessary labor is from his own point of view voluntary play. Whether a job is to be classified as labor or work depends, not on the job itself, but on the tastes of the individual who undertakes it. The difference does not, for example, coincide with the difference between a manual and a mental job; a gardener or a cobbler may be a worker, a bank clerk a laborer. Which a man is can be seen from his attitude toward leisure. To a worker, leisure means simply the hours he needs to relax and rest in order to work efficiently. He is therefore more likely to take too little leisure than too much; workers die of heart attacks and forget their wives' birthdays. To the laborer, on the other hand, leisure means freedom from compulsion, so that it is natural for him to imagine that the fewer hours he has to spend laboring, and the more hours he is free to play, the better.

    處在勞動和玩耍之間的是工作。如果一個人對社會為他支付報酬的工作感興趣,他就是一個工作者。從社會角度看是必需的勞動在他自己看來卻是自愿的玩耍。一個職位是勞動還是工作,并不取決于這個職位本身,而是取決于占據這個職位的個人自己的情趣。這種差異與體力勞動和腦力勞動之間的差異并不吻合。

    譬如,一個園丁或者鞋匠也許就是一個工作者,而一個銀行職員則可能是一個勞動者。一個人是工作者還是勞動者可以從他對閑暇的態度上看出來。對于一個工作者來說,閑暇不過是他需要放松、休息從而進行有效工作的幾個小時,所以,他可能只有少量的閑暇,而不會有大量的空閑。工作者可能會死于心臟病,并會忘記自己妻子的生日。而對于勞動者來說,閑暇就意味著擺脫強制,所以,他自然會想象:他不得不花費在勞動上的時間越少,而自由自在地玩耍的時間越多,那才越好。close

    4RT What percentage of the population in a modern technological

    society are, like myself, in the fortunate position of being workers? At a guess I would say sixteen per cent, and I do not think that figure is likely to get bigger in the future.

    在一個現代化的技術社會里,總人口中有多大比例的人能夠像我一樣有幸成為工作者呢?我估計大概有16%,而且,我認為這個數字將來也不會增加。close

    5RT Technology and the division of labor have done two things: by

    eliminating in many fields the need for special strength or skill, they have made a very large number of paid occupations which formerly were enjoyable work into boring labor, and by increasing productivity they have reduced the number of necessary laboring hours. It is already possible to imagine a society in which the majority of the

    population, that is to say, its laborers, will have almost as much leisure as in earlier times was enjoyed by the aristocracy. When one recalls how aristocracies in the past actually behaved, the prospect is not cheerful. Indeed, the problem of dealing with boredom may be even more difficult for such a future mass society than it was for

    aristocracies. The latter, for example, ritualized their time; there was a season to shoot grouse, a season to spend in town, etc. The masses are more likely to replace an unchanging ritual by fashion which changes as often as possible in the economic interest of certain people. Again, the masses cannot go in for hunting, for very soon there would be no

    animals left to hunt. For other aristocratic amusements like gambling, dueling, and warfare, it may be only too easy to find equivalents in dangerous driving, drug-taking, and senseless acts of violence.

    Workers seldom commit acts of violence, because they can put their aggression into their work, be it physical like the work of a smith, or mental like the work of a scientist or an artist. The role of aggression in mental work is aptly expressed by the phrase \getting one's teeth into a problem\

    技術和勞動的分工成就了兩件事:通過在許多領域取消了特別才能和技術的需要,把過去本來令人愉快的大量受雇職業的工作變成了令人厭倦的勞動;通過提高生產力,縮短了勞動所需的時間。已經可以想象出這樣一個社會:其人口的大多數,也就是其中的勞動者們,將會享受到早期貴族們才能享受到的幾乎同樣多的休閑。當人們回想起過去貴族們的舉止行為時,前景并非樂觀。的確,在未來這樣一個大眾社會里,人們要解決“無聊”這個問題,也許比過去的貴族們要困難得多。后者(貴族們)把他們的時間都儀式化了,譬如,有打松雞的季節,有在城鎮消磨的季節等等。廣大民眾更有可能以時尚來取代一成不變的儀式,而時尚將會為了某些人的經濟利益頻繁地變化。再者,廣大民眾也不會再去狩獵,因為,要不了多久可供獵