【地獄】福島で甲状腺ガン患者発生★７【スタート】
730 ：地震雷火事名無し(大阪府)：
>>728 読んでるなら分かるだろ？（笑
|
|
|
731 ：地震雷火事名無し(dion軍)：2012/10/29(月) 17:02:31.75 ID:1+VTv2bh0
↑バカな方、逃げたｗｗｗ
読んでないのモロバレｗｗｗ
読んでないのモロバレｗｗｗ
732 ：（意味不明千葉） ◆1eyju2jpSQ5d (千葉県)：2012/10/29(月) 17:02:41.05 ID:v0PCfdkH0
俺は読んでないよ。俺はここでは「大阪府のうちの一人（お前）が馬鹿だ」という事以外主張していないと思うが？
そしてお前が読んだ上で727を書いたようだから訳してやると言ったまでだ。
＞セシウムの影響に関して、ウクライナ政府としての見解がちゃんと載ってる。
＞お前は、なぜそれに触れないんだ？
この部分。訳してやるよ。何ページ目？
そしてお前が読んだ上で727を書いたようだから訳してやると言ったまでだ。
＞セシウムの影響に関して、ウクライナ政府としての見解がちゃんと載ってる。
＞お前は、なぜそれに触れないんだ？
この部分。訳してやるよ。何ページ目？
733 ：地震雷火事名無し(大阪府)：2012/10/29(月) 17:04:19.87 ID:cVO1SjyF0
>>732
Obviously, it will not do to take our ideal from the principle in nature;
for the simple reason that (except for some human or divine theory), there is no principle in nature.
For instance, the cheap anti-democrat of to-day will tell you solemnly that there is no equality in nature.
He is right, but he does not see the logical addendum.
There is no equality in nature; also there is no inequality in nature.
Inequality, as much as equality, implies a standard of value.
To read aristocracy into the anarchy of animals is just as sentimental as to read democracy into it.
Both aristocracy and democracy are human ideals:
the one saying that all men are valuable, the other that some men are more valuable.
But nature does not say that cats are more valuable than mice;
nature makes no remark on the subject.
She does not even say that the cat is enviable or the mouse pitiable.
We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have)
a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death.
But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse,
he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all.
He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first.
Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment
on the cat by keeping him alive.
Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence,
so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing
in the cat the torture of conscious existence.
It all depends on the philosophy of the mouse.
You cannot even say that there is victory or superiority in nature unless you have some doctrine about what things are superior.
You cannot even say that the cat scores unless there is a system of scoring.
You cannot even say that the cat gets the best of it unless there is some best to be got.
Obviously, it will not do to take our ideal from the principle in nature;
for the simple reason that (except for some human or divine theory), there is no principle in nature.
For instance, the cheap anti-democrat of to-day will tell you solemnly that there is no equality in nature.
He is right, but he does not see the logical addendum.
There is no equality in nature; also there is no inequality in nature.
Inequality, as much as equality, implies a standard of value.
To read aristocracy into the anarchy of animals is just as sentimental as to read democracy into it.
Both aristocracy and democracy are human ideals:
the one saying that all men are valuable, the other that some men are more valuable.
But nature does not say that cats are more valuable than mice;
nature makes no remark on the subject.
She does not even say that the cat is enviable or the mouse pitiable.
We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have)
a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death.
But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse,
he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all.
He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first.
Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment
on the cat by keeping him alive.
Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence,
so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing
in the cat the torture of conscious existence.
It all depends on the philosophy of the mouse.
You cannot even say that there is victory or superiority in nature unless you have some doctrine about what things are superior.
You cannot even say that the cat scores unless there is a system of scoring.
You cannot even say that the cat gets the best of it unless there is some best to be got.