当前位置：
＞＞＞What makes you _____?[ ]A. healthyB. healthilyC. healthD..
What makes you _____?
A. healthyB. healthilyC. healthD. be healthy
题型：单选题难度：中档来源：同步题
马上分享给同学
据魔方格专家权威分析，试题“What makes you _____?[ ]A. healthyB. healthilyC. healthD..”主要考查你对&&形容词&&等考点的理解。关于这些考点的“档案”如下：
现在没空？点击收藏，以后再看。
因为篇幅有限，只列出部分考点，详细请访问。
形容词：简称adj.或a，形容词用来修饰名词或代词，表示人或事物的性质、状态，和特征的程度好坏与否，形容词在句中作定语，表语，宾语补足语。她是一个好学生，她学习努力。She is a good student, and she works hard.这辆自行车很贵。This bike is expensive.对不起,我现在很忙。I am sorry, I'm busy now.你为这次会议做好准备了吗? Have you got everything ready for the meeting?形容词的语法功能：一、作定语He is the greatest writer alive.他是依然健在的伟大的作家。Somewone else has done it.别人已经做了这事。二、作补语形容词做主语补足语和宾语补足语时,可以表示其现状、状态，也可以表示某一动作的结果，并常用在表示“认为，看待”的动词如believe，prove，consider等候。例如：The news made her sad.这消息使他感到非常悲伤。Don't marry young.不要早婚。三、作状语形容词或形容词短语可作状语，形容词作状语时，可以看作是“being+形容词”结构的省略，可表示时间、原因、条件、方式、强调或伴随状况等意义。例如：Enthusiastic，they are co-operative.热心的时候他们是很合作的。Rich or poor, young or old, we all have problems.不管是穷人还是富人，不管是年轻人还是老人，我们都有问题。四、做表语The ship was adrift on unknown seas．那艘船在陌生的海域漂流。五、做主语Old and young joined the discussion.Rich or poor meant the same to him.作感叹语Very good!Say it again.Stupid!He must be crasy.形容词的几个特殊用法：most 同形容词连用而不用 the, 表示 " 极,很,非常, 十分"。 It's most dangerous to be here. 在这儿太危险。 I cannot do it, it's most difficult. 我干不了这件事，太难了。 "The+形容词比较级..., the+形容词比较级..." 表示 " 越... 就越..."。 The more you study, the more you know. 你学的越多, 就知道的越多。 The more I have, the more I want. 我越有就越想要有。 The more, the better. 越多越好。 " 形容词比较级 + and + 形容词比较级 ", 表示 " 越来越... "。 It's getting hotter and hotter. 天气越来越热了. It's pity he is getting poorer and poorer. 真可怜他越来越穷了。 The computer is cheaper and cheaper. 计算机越来越便宜。 The more and more people focus on the meeting next year. 越来越多的人关注明年的会议。 主语+谓语(系动词)+as+形容词原形+as+从句。表示两者对比相同。 This box is as big as mine. 这个盒子和我的一样大。 This coat is as cheap as that one. 这件衣服同那件衣服一样便宜。&I study English as hard as my brother. 我同我兄弟一样学习努力。 the + 形容词 表示某种人。 He always helps the poor. 他经常帮助穷人。 I like to have a talk with the young. 我喜欢同年轻人谈话。 The rich sometimes complain their empty life. 富人有时抱怨他们空虚的生活。 The police led the old man across the street. 警察领老人横过马路。
以-ly结尾的形容词1） 大部分形容词加-ly可构成副词。但 friendly，deadly，lovely，lonely，likely，lively，brotherly，仍为形容词。改错：(错） She sang lovely.　　&&&&&&&&&& （错） He spoke to me very friendly.　　 （对） Her singing was lovely.　　（对） He spoke to me in a very friendly way.2）有些以-ly 结尾的词既为形容词，也为副词。daily，weekly，monthly，yearly，earlyThe Times is a daily paper.The Times is published daily.
too+adj.+to句型&& “太…而不能”& He is too young to go to school.&=He isn’t old enough to go to school.&=He is so young that he can’t go to school.形容词的位置:1.形容词一般放在名词前作定语?&& 单个形容词修饰名词时，一般要放在名词的前面。它们的前面常常带有冠词、形容词性物主代词、指示代词、数词等。例如：?&& a red flower一朵红花?an interesting story一个有趣的故事?&& six blind men 六个盲人?my own house我自己的房子?如果有两个或两个以上的形容词修饰一个名词时，则由它们和被修饰的名词之间的密切程度而定，越密切的形容词越靠近名词。如果几个形容词的密切程度差不多则按音节少的形容词放在前面，音节多的形容词放在后面。&& 2.当形容词所修饰的词是由some,any,every,no等构成的不定代词时，形容词必须置于名词之后。例如：?&& &&& She has something new to tell me.?她有一些新的情况告诉我。?&& &&& I have nothing important to do today.?今天我没有重要的工作要做。?&& &&& Do you know anybody else here??这儿你还有认识的人吗？?&& 3.形容词后面有介词短语或不定式短语时，形容词必须置于名词之后。例如：?&& &&& It is a problem difficult to work out.?这是一道难以解决的问题。?&& &&& Edison is a student difficult to teach.?爱迪生是个很难教的学生。?&& &&& This is a kind of flowers easy to grow.?这是一种易栽的花。?&& 4.用 and 或 or 连接起来的两个形容词作定语时一般把它们放在被修饰的名词后面。起进一步解释的作用。例如：?&& &&& All people,young or old,should be strict with themselves.?&& &&& 所有的人，无论老少，都应该严格要求自己。?&& &&& We are building a new school, modern and super.?&& &&& 我们正在建一所现代化的高档次的新型学校。?&& &&& All countries, rich and poor, should help one another. 所有的国家，无论穷富都应该互相帮助。?&& 5.有少数形容词，如enough和possible，既可置于所修饰的名词前面也可以置于它所修饰的名词之后。例如：?&&& Do you have enough time(time enough)to prepare?你有足够的时间做准备吗？?&&& Maybe it will be a possible chance(chance possible)for you.或许它将成为一次可能的机遇。6.有些形容词，置于名词之前与之后，含义不尽相同。例如：?&& the writer present 出席的作者?&& the present writer 现在的作者?7.表示长，宽，高，深，及年龄的形容词，应放在相应的名词之后。This river is about 100 metres wide.The building is more than 50 metres tall.&He is less than 40 years old.8. enough修饰名词时，在名词前后都可以。They said that they had enough food.=&They said that they had food enough.&enough 修饰形容词和副词，位于其后。&He is old enough to join the army.&He isn’t old enough to go to school.9.形容词else通常放在疑问代词，疑问副词或不定代词后&what/who/where/when/when else&something/anything/nothing…else&What else did you do?&Do you have anything else to say?10.由两个或两个以上的词组成的形容词词组修饰名词时须放在名词之后。This is the book easy to read.这是一本容易读的书。形容词知识拓展:名词化的形容词：有些形容词可以和定冠词连用，表示一类人或事物，这时，它相当于一个名词，可作主语或宾语；表示一类人时，看作复数，表示一类事物时，通常看作单数。Robin Hooh(罗宾汉) hated the rich and loved the poor.The old are taken good& care of in American.the+形容词，常见的短语有：the old/the young/the sick/the white/the black/the rich/the poor/the dead(死者)形似副词的形容词：以-ly结尾的词通常是副词，但是下列词为形容词。friendly& lonely (孤独的) ；lively (活着的)；lovely(可爱的)复合形容词的类型：(1)名词+过去分词& man-made satellite 人造卫星(2)形容词+现在分词& a good-looking man(3)形容词+名词& second-hand cars(4)数词+名词-ed&& three-legged chairs三条腿的椅子(5)数词+名词& 400- metre race(6)副词+现在分词& hard-working students(7)副词+过去分词& well-known writers(8)形容词+形容词& a dark-red jacket(9)形容词+过去分词& ready-made clothes 成品服装含有形容词的常用句型：(1) It’s+adj. of sb. to do sth.(good/ kind/nice/polite/clever/foolish… )It’s very kind of you to help me.(2) It’s +adj. for sb. to do sth.(difficult/easy/hard/dangerous/usefulinteresting/important…)It’s important for us to learn English well.(3)下列形容词后常跟动词不定式&表示情感或情绪的形容词：glad,pleased,sorry,sad,afraid,thankful…&I'm glad to see you.表示能力，意志或推测的形容词：ready,able,sure,certain…&I’m sorry to hear that.某些现在分词和过去分词可作形容词the moving story 令人感动的故事a moved boy&& 一个被感动的男孩a frightened child 一个被吓到的孩子a frightening film 一个恐怖电影
发现相似题
与“What makes you _____?[ ]A. healthyB. healthilyC. healthD..”考查相似的试题有：
583086350313743714966464850133293what makes it to 中文版叫什么?一次偶尔听到邓子琪中文版的what makes it to 但是没记住名字 希望大家可以 告诉我中文版的名字 ··· 我找到了 是《回忆的沙漏》我是问中文版 不是求翻译···_百度作业帮
what makes it to 中文版叫什么?一次偶尔听到邓子琪中文版的what makes it to 但是没记住名字 希望大家可以 告诉我中文版的名字 ··· 我找到了 是《回忆的沙漏》我是问中文版 不是求翻译···
一次偶尔听到邓子琪中文版的what makes it to 但是没记住名字 希望大家可以 告诉我中文版的名字 ··· 我找到了 是《回忆的沙漏》我是问中文版 不是求翻译···
What it makes to miss you so：是什么使得我那么想你.文档分类：
在线文档经过高度压缩，下载原文更清晰。
淘豆网网友近日为您收集整理了关于精品范文-[Thomas_Nagel]_What_does_it_all_mean_a_very_shor的文档，希望对您的工作和学习有所帮助。以下是文档介绍：精品范文-[Thomas_Nagel]_What_does_it_all_mean_a_very_shor THOMAS NAGELWhat Does It All Mean?A Very Short Introduction to PhilosophyOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York OxfordOxford University PressOxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong KongTokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and panies in BeirutBerlin Ibadan NicosiaCopyright c 1987 by Thomas NagelPublished by Oxford University Press, Inc., 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 1001(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])6-4314Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University PressAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, orotherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of CongressCataloging-in-Publication Data Nagel, Thomas.What does it all mean? 1. Philosophy – Introductions. I. Title.(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html]) BD21.N24 -14316 ISBN0-19- ISBN 0-19- (pbk.)cloth 10 9 8 7 6 paper 25 24 23 22 21 20Printed in the United States of AmericaContents1. Introduction&a href=&59680&&3 &/a&2. How Do We Know Anything?&a href=&59685&&8 &/a&13. Other Minds&a href=&59696&&19 &/a&4. The Mind-Body Problem&a href=&59704&&27 &/a&5. The Meaning of Words&a href=&q(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])59715&&38 &/a&6. Free Will&a href=&59724&&47 &/a&7. Right and Wrong&a href=&59736&&59 &/a&8. Justice&a href=&59753&&76 &/a&9. Death&a href=&59764&&87 &/a&10. The Meaning of Life&a href=&59772&&95 &/a&What Does It All Mean?-1-1Introduction2This book is a brief introduction to philosophy for people who don’t know the rst thin(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])g about thesubject. People ordinarily study philosophy only when they go to college, and I suppose that mostreaders will be of college age or older. But that has nothing to do with the nature of the subject, and Iwould be very glad if the book were also of interest to intelligent high school students with a taste forabstract ideas and theoretical arguments – should any of them read it.Our analytical capacities are often highly developed before we ha(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])ve learned a great deal about theworld, and around the age of fourteen many people start to think about philosophical problems on theirown – about what really exists, whether we can know anything, whether-3-anthing is really right or wrong, whether life has any meaning, whether death is the end. These problemshave been written about for thousands of years, but the philosophical raw es directly fromthe world and our relation to it, not from writings (来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])of the past. That is why e up again and again,in the heads of people who haven’t read about them.This is a direct introduction to nine philosophical problems, each of which can be understood in itself,without reference to the history of thought. I shall not discuss the great philosophical writings of thepast or the cultural background of those writings. The center of philosophy lies in certain questionswhich the reective human mind nds naturally puz(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])zling, and the best way to begin the study ofphilosophy is to think about them directly. Once you’ve done that, you are in a better position toappreciate the work of others who have tried to solve the same problems.Philosophy is different from science and from mathematics. Unlike science it doesn’t rely onexperiments or observation, but only on thought. And unlike mathematics it has no formal methods ofproof. It is done just by asking questions, arg(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])uing, trying out ideas and thinking of possible argumentsagainst them, and wondering how our concepts really work.-4-The main concern of philosophy is to question and understand mon ideas that all of us useevery day without thinking about them. A historian may ask what happened at some time in the past, buta philosopher will ask, &What is time?& A mathematician may investigate the relations among numbers,but a philosopher will ask, &W(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])hat is a number?& A physicist will ask what atoms are made of or whatexplains gravity, but a philosopher will ask how we can know there is anything outside of our ownminds. A psychologist may investigate how children learn a language, but a philosopher will ask, &Whatmakes a word mean anything?& Anyone can ask whether it’s wrong to sneak into a movie withoutpaying, but a philosopher will ask, &What makes an action right or wrong?(来源：淘豆网[/p-7097601.html])&3We couldn’t get along in life without taking the ideas of time, number, knowledge, language, right andwrong for gran but in philosophy we investigate those things themselves. The aimis to push our understanding of the world and ourselves a bit deeper. Obviously it isn’t easy. The morebasic the ideas you are trying to investigate, the fewer tools you have to work with. There isn’t muchyou can assume or take for granted. So philosophy is a somewhat dizzying activity, and few of its resultsgo unchallenged for long.-5-Since I believe the best way to learn about philosophy is to think about particular questions, I won’t tryto say more about its general nature. The nine problems we’ll consider are these:Knowledge of the world beyond our mindsKnowledge of minds other than our ownThe relation between mind and brainHow language is possibleWhether we have free willThe basis of moralityWhat inequalities are unjustThe nature of deathThe meaning of lifeThey are only a selection: there are many, many others.What I say will reect my own view of these problems and will not necessarily represent what mostphilosophers think. There probably isn’t anything that most philosophers think about these questionsanyway: philosophers disagree, and there are more than two sides to every philosophical question. Mypersonal opinion is that most of these problems have not been solved, and that perhaps some of themnever will be. But the object here is not to give answers -not even answers that I myself may think areright – but to introduce you to the problems in a very preliminary way so that you can worry-6-about them yourself. Before learning a lot of philosophical theories it is better to get puzzled about thephilosophical questions which those theories try to answer. And the best way to do that is to look atsome possible solutions and see what is wrong with them. I’ll try to leave the problems open, but even ifI say what I think, you have no reason to believe it unless you nd it convincing.There are many excellent introductory texts that include selections from the great philosophers of the4past and from more recent writings. This short book is not a substitute for that approach, but I hope itprovides a rst look at the subject that is as clear and direct as possible. If after reading it you decide totake a second look, you’ll see how much more there is to say about these problems than I say here.-7-2How Do We Know Anything?If you think about it, the inside of your own mind is the only thing you can be sure of.Whatever you believe – whether it’s about the sun, moon, and stars, the house and neighborhood inwhich you live, history, science, other people, even the existence of your own body -is based on yourexperiences and thoughts, feelings and sense impressions. That’s all you have to go on directly, whetheryou see the book in your hands, or feel the oor under your feet, or remember that e Washingtonwas the rst president of the United States, or that water is H 2O. Everything else is farther away fromyou than your inner experiences and thoughts, and reaches you only through them.-8-Ordinarily you have no doubts about the existence of the oor under your feet, or the tree outside thewindow, or your own teeth. In fact most of the time you don’t even think about the mental states thatmake you aware of those things: you seem to be aware of them directly. But how do you know theyreally exist?If you try to argue that there must be an external physical world, because you wouldn’t see buildings,people, or stars unless there were things out there that reected or shed light into your eyes and causedyour visual experiences, the reply is obvious: How do you know that? It’s just another claim about theexternal world and your relation to it, and it has to be based on the evidence of your senses. But you canrely on that specic evidence about how visual experiences are caused only if you can already rely ingeneral on the contents of your mind to tell you about the external world. And that is exactly what hasbeen called into question. If you try to prove the reliability of your impressions by appealing to yourimpressions, you’re arguing in a circle and won’t get anywhere.Would things seem any different to you if in fact all these things existed only in your mind – ifeverything you took to be the real world outside was just a giant dream or hallucination, from which youwill never wake up? If it were like that,-9-then of course you couldn’t wake up, as you can from a dream, because it would mean there was no5&real& world to wake up into. So it wouldn’t be exactly like a normal dream or hallucination. As weusually think of dreams, they go on in the minds of people who are actually lying in a real bed in a realhouse, even if in the dream they are running away from a homicidal lawnmor through the streets ofKansas City. We also assume that normal dreams depend on what is happening in the dreamer’s brainwhile he sleeps.But couldn’t all your experiences be like a giant dream with no external world outside it? How can youknow that isn’t what’s going on? If all your experience were a dream with nothing outside, then anyevidence you tried to use to prove to yourself that there was an outside world would just be part of thedream. If you knocked on the table or pinched yourself, you would hear the knock and feel the pinch,but that would be just one more thing going on inside your mind like everything else. It’s no use: If youwant to nd out whether what’s inside your mind is any guide to what’s outside your mind, you can’tdepend on how things seem – from inside your mind – to give you the answer.But what else is there to depend on? All your evidence about anything has e through your mind –whether in the form of perception,-10-the testimony of books and other people, or memory – and it is entirely consistent with everythingyou’re aware of that nothing at all exists except the inside of your mind.It’s even possible that you don’t have a body or a brain – since your beliefs about e onlythrough the evidence of your senses. You’ve never seen your brain – you just assume that everybody hasone – but even if you had seen it, or thought you had, that would have been just another visualexperience. Maybe you, the subject of experience, are the only thing that exists, and there is no physicalworld at all – no stars, no earth, no human bodies. Maybe there isn’t even any space.The most radical conclusion to draw from this would be that your mind is the only thing that exists. Thisview is called solipsism. It is a very lonely view, and not too many people have held it. As you can tellfrom that remark, I don’t hold it myself. If I were a solipsist I probably wouldn’t be writing this book,since I wouldn’t believe there was anybody else to read it. On the other hand, perhaps I would write it tomake my inner life more interesting, by including the impression of the appearance of the book in print,of other people reading it and telling me their reactions, and so forth. I might even get the impression ofroyalties, if I’m lucky.Perhaps you are a solipsist: in that case you-11-6will regard this book as a product of your own mind, coming into existence in your experience as youread it. Obviously nothing I can say can prove to you that I really exist, or that the book as a physicalobject exists.On the other hand, to conclude that you are the only thing that exists is more than the evidence warrants.You can’t know on the basis of what’s in your mind that there’s no world outside it. Perhaps the rightconclusion is the more modest one that you don’t know anything beyond your impressions andexperiences. There may or may not be an external world, and if there is it may or may not pletelydifferent from how it seems to you – there’s no way for you to tell. This view is called skepticism aboutthe external world.An even stronger form of skepticism is possible. Similar arguments seem to show that you don’t knowanything even about your own past existence and experiences, since all you have to go on are the presentcontents of your mind, including memory impressions. If you can’t be sure that the world outside yourmind exists now, how can you be sure that you yourself existed before now? How do you know youdidn’t e into existence a few minutes ago, complete with all your present memories? The onlyevidence that you couldn’t e into exis--12-tence a few minutes ago depends on beliefs about how people and their memories are produced, whichrely in turn on beliefs about what has happened in the past. But to rely on those beliefs to prove that youexisted in the past would again be to argue in a circle. You would be assuming the reality of the past toprove the reality of the past.It seems that you are stuck with nothing you can be sure of except the contents of your own mind at thepresent moment. And it seems that anything you try to do to argue your way out of this predicament willfail, because the argument will have to assume what you are trying to prove – the existence of theexternal world beyond your mind.Suppose, for instance, you argue that there must be an external world, because it is incredible that youshould be having all these experiences without there being some explanation in terms of external causes.The skeptic can make two replies. First, even if there are external causes, how can you tell from thecontents of your experience what those causes are like? You’ve never observed any of them directly.Second, what is the basis of your idea that everything has to have an explanation? It’s true that in yournormal, nonphilosophical conception of the world, processes like those which go on in-13-7your mind are caused, at least in part, by other things outside them. But you can’t assume that this is trueif what you’re trying to gure out is how you know anything about the world outside your mind. Andthere is no way to prove such a principle just by looking at what’s inside your mind. However plausiblethe principle may seem to you, what reason do you have to believe that it applies to the world?Science won’t help us with this problem either, though it might seem to. In ordinary scientic thinking,we rely on general principles of explanation to pass from the way the world rst seems to us to adifferent conception of what it is really like. We try to explain the appearances in terms of a theory thatdescribes the reality behind them, a reality that we can’t observe directly. That is how physics andchemistry conclude that all the things we see around us posed of invisibly small atoms. Couldwe argue that the general belief in the external world has the same kind of scientic backing as thebelief in atoms?The skeptic’s answer is that the process of scientic reasoning raises the same skeptical problem wehave been considering all along: Science is just as vulnerable as perception. How can we know that theworld outside our minds corresponds to our ideas of what would be a good-14-theoretical explanation of our observations? If we can’t establish the reliability of our sense experiencesin relation to the external world, there’s no reason to think we can rely on our scientic theories either.There is another very different response to the problem. Some would argue that radical skepticism of thekind I have been talking about is meaningless, because the idea of an external reality that no one couldever discover is meaningless. The argument is that a dream, for instance, has to be something fromwhich you can wake up to discover that
a hallucination has to be somethingwhich others (or you later) can see is not really there. Impressions and appearances that do notcorrespond to reality must be contrasted with others that do correspond to reality, or else the contrastbetween appearance and reality is meaningless.According to this view, the idea of a dream from which you can never wake up is not the idea of a dreamat all: it is the idea of reality -the real world in which you live. Our idea of the things that exist is justour idea of what we can observe. (This view is sometimes called vericationism.) Sometimes ourobservations are mistaken, but that means they can be corrected by other observations – as when youwake up from a dream or discover that what you thought was-15-a snake was just a shadow on the grass. But without some possibility of a correct view of how things are8(either yours or someone else’s), the thought that your impressions of the world are not true ismeaningless.If this is right, then the skeptic is kidding himself if he thinks he can imagine that the only thing thatexists is his own mind. He is kidding himself, because it couldn’t be true that the physical worlddoesn’t’really exist, unless somebody could observe that it doesn’t exist. And what the skeptic is tryingto imagine is precisely that there is no one to observe that or anything else – except of course the skeptichimself, and all he can observe is the inside of his own mind. So solipsism is meaningless. It tries tosubtract the external world from the totali but it fails, because if the external worldis subtracted, they stop being mere impressions, and e instead perceptions of reality.Is this argument against solipsism and skepticism any good? Not unless reality can be dened as whatwe can observe. But are we really unable to understand the idea of a real world, or a fact about reality,that can’t be observed by anyone, human or otherwise?The skeptic will claim that if there is an external world, the things in it are observable because-16-they exist, and not the other way around: that existence isn’t the same thing as observability. Andalthough we get the idea of dreams and hallucinations from cases where we think we can observe thecontrast between our experiences and reality, it certainly seems as if the same idea can be extended tocases where the reality is not observable.If that is right, it seems to follow that it is not meaningless to think that the world might consist ofnothing but the inside of your mind, though neither you nor anyone else could nd out that this was true.And if this is not meaningless, but is a possibility you must consider, there seems no way to prove that itis false, without arguing in a circle. So there may be no way out of the cage of your own mind. This issometimes called the egocentric predicament.And yet, after all this has been said, I have to admit it is practically impossible to believe seriously thatall the things in the world around you might not really exist. Our acceptance of the external world isinstinctive and powerful: we cannot just get rid of it by philosophical arguments. Not only do we go onacting as if other people and things exist: we believe that they do, even after we’ve gone through thearguments which appear to show we have no grounds for this belief. (We may have grounds, within theoverall-17-system of our beliefs about the world, for more particular beliefs about the existence of particular9things: like a mouse in the breadbox, for example. But that is different. It assumes the existence of theexternal world.)If a belief in the world outside our es so naturally to us, perhaps we don’tneed grounds for it. We can just let it be and hope that we’re right. And that in fact is what most peopledo after giving up the attempt to prove it: even if they can’t give reasons against skepticism, they can’tlive with it either. But this means that we hold on to most of our ordinary beliefs about the world in faceof the fact that (a) they might pletely false, and (b) we have no basis for ruling out thatpossibility.We are left then with three questions:1.Is it a meaningful possibility that the inside of your mind is the only thing that exists – orthat even if there is a world outside your mind, it is totally unlike what you believe it tobe?2.If these things are possible, do you have any way of proving to yourself that they are notactually true?3.If you can’t prove that anything exists outside your own mind, is it all right to go onbelieving in the external world anyway?-18-3Other MindsThere is one special kind of skepticism which continues to be a problem even if you assume that yourmind is not the only thing there is -that the physical world you seem to see and feel around you,including your own body, really exists. That is skepticism about the nature or even existence of minds orexperiences other than your own.How much do you really know about what goes on in anyone else’s mind? Clearly you observe only thebodies of other creatures, including people. You watch what they do, listen to what they say and to theother sounds they make, and see how they respond to their environment – what things attract them andwhat things repel them, what they eat, and so forth. You can also cut open other creatures and look-19-at their physical insides, and pare their anatomy with yours.But none of this will give you direct access to their experiences, thoughts, and feelings. The onlyexperiences you can actually have are your own: if you believe anything about the mental lives of10播放器加载中，请稍候...
该用户其他文档
下载所得到的文件列表精品范文-[Thomas_Nagel]_What_does_it_all_mean_a_very_shor.pdf
文档介绍：
精品范文-[Thomas_Nagel]_What_does_it_all_mean_a_very_shor THOMAS NAGELWhat Does It All Mean?A Very Short Introduction to PhilosophyOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York OxfordOxford University PressOxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong KongTokyo Nairobi...
内容来自淘豆网转载请标明出处.