Directions:In the following text, some sentences have been removed. For questions 41-45, choose the most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into each of the numbered blank. There are two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the gaps. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
Many of the philosophers we have been reading in class seem to me to be hopelessly dated. Of course, it's easy to become trapped in writing only for the period a person lives in, and a philosophy is necessarily dependent on the historical situation and the extent of man's knowledge. (41).
However, Victor Hugo said that if he were writing for his own time only, he would have to break his pen and throw it away. (42) . And it seems to me that the most frequent objections to modern and pre-modern philosophers come from the incompatibility of their philosophies with what is considered to be established scientific fact. For instance, Plato's theory of forms does not, to me, seem to jibe with modern physics and cosmology. And although I can only vaguely glimpse the psychology which underlies Kant, it seems to be highly questionable.
(44) . History is, of course, necessary to any understanding of a philosophy: how it came about, what people did with it, etc. Sartre, although he developed some of his ideas from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, probably could not have expounded those same ideas of existentialism in their times; Nietzsche, who popularized the idea that "God is dead", could not have written in the time of Descartes; and Descartes could not have expressed his radically individualist ideas during the time of Plato.
I suppose that my point, which I am being exceedingly long-winded about, is that philosophy does not (and should not, and must not) stand apart from the rest of the sciences. (45) . Although the other sciences can provide us with data, observations, and theories, only philosophy can integrate those into a coherent whole, tell us what to do with them, or provide a meaningful context for using these facts in our daily lives.
[A] In my view, application of Kant's epistemology and metaphysics could never produce an artificial intelligence capable of passing a Turing test.
[B] Rather, philosophy should be integrated with the rest of the sciences through a method of rational judgment. Rather than sailing behind, or next to but away from, the rest of the sciences, Philosophy should be the flagship of the group.
[C] And many of the philosophers who have existed over the course of the centuries have necessarily had to worry about governmental, church, or societal disapproval, censorship, or punishment.
[D] After all, physics can give us insights into metaphysics, since both seek different ways to do the same thing; psychology, sociology, anthropology, and archeology can give us insights into epistemology; various "soft" sciences dealing with comparative cultures can provide food for thought in ethnics, and so on.
[E] Although some philosophical people are not necessarily considered as philosophers today，whose work was influential and instrumental in developing one of the social sciences ( psychology, sociology, political science, education) or in advancing theoretical science (what is now called philosophy of science).
[F] And so, it seems to me, the best way that a philosopher can keep from being dated is to be aware of scientific knowledge, and integrate it into philosophy. Of course, this necessitates an independent evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of a given scientific idea, which necessitates, in turn, a thorough knowledge of that theory.
[G] And so, it seems to me that, in order for a philosopher to be relevant for the future as well as the present, he must take into account all of the objections to his philosophy which can be anticipated at the present time.
Directions: The following paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent article by choosing from the list A-G to fill in each numbered box. The first and the last paragraphs have been placed for you in Boxes. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
[A] Is that what the American viewing public is getting? Perhaps 10% of primetime network programming is a happy combination of entertainment and enrichment. There used to be television movies rich in human values, but they have now become an endangered species. I find television too much concerned with what people have and too little concerned with who they are, very concerned with taking care of No. 1 and not at all concerned with sharing themselves with other people. All too often it tells us the half truth we want to hear rather than the whole truth we need to hear.
[B] Why is television not more fully realizing its humanizing potential? Is the creative community at fault? Partially. But not primarily. I have lived and worked in that community for 32 years, as both priest and producer. As a group, these people have values. In fact, in Hollywood in recent months, audience enrichment has become the in thing. A coalition of media companies has endowed the Humanitas Prize so that it can recognize and celebrate those who accomplish it.
[C] Every good story will not only captivate its viewers but also give them some insight into what it means to be a human being. By so doing, it can help them grow into the deeply centered, sovereignly free, joyously loving human being God made them to be. Meaning, freedom and love——the supreme human values. And this is the kind of human enrichment the American viewing public has a right to expect from those who make its entertainment.
[D] The problem with American TV is not the lack of storytellers of conscience but the commercial system within which they have to operate. Television in the U.S. is a business. In the past, the business side has been balanced by a commitment to public service. But in recent years the fragmentation of the mass audience, huge interest payments and skyrocketing production costs have combined with the FCC's abdication of its responsibility to protect the common good to produce an almost total preoccupation with the bottom line. The networks are struggling to survive. And that, the statistics seem to indicate, is mindless, heartless, escapist fare. If we are dissatisfied with the moral content of what we are invited to watch, I think we should begin by examining our own consciences. When we tune in, are we ready to plunge into reality, so as to extract its meaning, or are we hoping to escape into a sedated world of illusion? And if church leaders want to elevate the quality of the country's entertainment, they should forget about boycotts, production codes and censorship. They should work at educating their people in media literacy and at mobilizing them to support quality shows in huge numbers.
[E] It is not a question of entertainment or enrichment. These are complementary concerns and presuppose each other. The story that entertains without enriching is superficial and escapist. The story that enriches without entertaining is simply dull. The story that does both is a delight.
[F] That is the only sure way to improve the moral content of America's entertainment.
[G] Despite questions of the motivation behind them, the attacks by the President and the Vice President on the moral content of television entertainment have found an echo in the chambers of the American soul. Many who reject the messengers still accept the message. They do not like the moral tone of American TV. In our society only the human family surpasses television in its capacity to communicate values, provide role models, form consciences and motivate human behavior. Few educator, church leaders or politicians possess the moral influence of those who create the nation's entertainment.
G 41 42 43 44 45 F