剑桥雅思12Test5Passage3阅读原文翻译What’

剑桥雅思12Test5Passage3阅读原文翻译What’s the purpose of gaining knowledge，今天就来为大家分析这个问题。

What’s the purpose of gaining knowledge

获取知识的目的是什么

剑桥雅思12 Test5 Passage3阅读原文翻译

段落A

‘I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any subject.’That was the founder’s motto for Cornell University,and it seems an apt characterization of the different university,also in the USA,where I currently teach philosophy.A student can prepare for a career in resort management,engineering,interior design,accounting,music,law enforcement,you name it.But what would the founders of these two institutions have thought of a course called‘Arson for Profit’?I kid you not:we have it on the books.Any undergraduates who have met the academic requirements can sign up for the course in our program in‘fire science’.

“我将成立一所任何人都可以学到任何学科的机构”。这是康奈尔大学创建者的座右铭。这似乎十分恰当地描述了另一所大学的特征。它也位于美国，而我正在那里教授哲学。学生在这里可以为将来各种各样的职业做好准备，包括度假村管理，工程学，室内设计，会计，音乐，法律实施等。但这两所学校的创办者会怎么看待一门叫做“纵火谋利”的课程呢？我并没有跟你开玩笑。这门课程是有案可查的。任何满足学术要求的本科生都可以在我们“火灾科学”这一项目中选择该课程。

段落B

Naturally,the course is intended for prospective arson investigators,who can learn all the tricks of the trade for detecting whether a fire was deliberately set,discovering who did it,and establishing a chain of evidence for effective prosecution in a court of law.But wouldn’t this also be the perfect course for prospective arsonists to sign up for?My point is not to criticize academic programs in fire science:they are highly welcome as part of the increasing professionalization of this and many other occupations.However,it’s not unknown for a firefighter to torch a building.This example suggests how dishonest and illegal behavior,with the help of higher education,can creep into every aspect of public and business life.

当然，这一课程是为那些未来的纵火调查员设计的。他们可以学习该领域的各种窍门，判断一场火灾是否是蓄意而为，找出纵火者，并建立证据链文章来自雅思以在法庭上可以进行有效的诉讼。但这难道不也是一门未来纵火犯可以报名的完美课程吗？我的重点不是批评纵火科学领域的学术项目：它们作为该行业以及许多其他行业日益专业化的一部分，受到高度欢迎。然而，对于消防员来说，烧毁一栋建筑并不陌生。这一例子表明，在高等教育的帮助下，欺诈和不法行为是如何悄悄潜入公众和商业生活的方方面面的。

段落C

I realized this anew when I was invited to speak before a class in marketing,which is another of our degree programs.The regular instructor is a colleague who appreciates the kind of ethical perspective I can bring as a philosopher.There are endless ways I could have approached this assignment,but I took my cue from the title of the course:‘Principles of Marketing’.It made me think to ask the students,‘Is marketing principled?’After all,a subject matter can have principles in the sense of being codified,having rules,as with football or chess,without being principled in the sense of being ethical.Many of the students immediately assumed that the answer to my question about marketing principles was obvious:no.Just look at the ways in which everything under the sun has been marketed;obviously it need not be done in a principled(=ethical)fashion.

当我受邀在市场营销课程（我们学校的另一门专业）上演讲时，我重新认识了这一点。这门课的日常老师是我的同事。他很欣赏我作为一名哲学家所带来的伦理视角。我有无数种方式可以切入这一任务，但我受到课程名称-市场营销原理-的启发。这让我想要询问学生，市场营销是有原则可循的吗？毕竟，一门课程从被编纂、设置规则的意义上讲，是能够拥有原理的，正如足球和国际象棋那样。但从伦理意义而言，是没有原则可以遵循的。许多学生很快认为我关于市场营销原理的问题的答案是显而易见的。只需要研究一下世上万物被营销的方式即可。显然，它不需要以一种“有原则的”（即伦理的）方式进行。

段落D

Is that obvious?I made the suggestion,which may sound downright crazy in light of the evidence,that perhaps marketing is by definition principled.My inspiration for this judgement is the philosopher Immanuel Kant,who argued that any body of knowledge consists of an end(or purpose)and a means.

这不明显么？我认为，或许市场营销按定义而言就是有规则的。这在大量的证据之下可能听起来很疯狂。我这一判断的灵感来自于哲学家伊曼努尔?康德。他认为任何知识的本体既包含结果（或目的），也包含手段。

段落E

Let us apply both the terms‘means’and‘end’to marketing.The students have signed up for a course in order to learn how to market effectively.But to what end?There seem to be two main attitudes toward that question.One is that the answer is obvious:the purpose of marketing is to sell things and to make money.The other attitude is that the purpose of marketing is irrelevant:each person comes to the program and course with his or her own plans,and these need not even concern the acquisition of marketing expertise as such.My proposal,which I believe would also be Kant’s,is that neither of these attitudes captures the significance of the end to the means for marketing.A field of knowledge or a professional endeavor is defined by both the means and the end;hence both deserve scrutiny.Students need to study both how to achieve X,and also what X is.

让我们将“手段”和“结果”这两个术语应用于市场营销。报名该课程的学生是为了学习如何有效营销。但为了实现什么结果呢？关于这个问题似乎有两种主要态度。一种认为答案显而易见：市场营销的目的是出售物品和赚钱。另一种则认为市场营销的目的无关紧要：每个学习这门课程的人都带着他们自己的计划。这些计划甚至不需要与市场营销技能的获取有关。我的想法是，这两种态度都没有抓住结果对于市场营销手段的重要性。我相信康德也会这么认为。一个知识领域或专业技能由手段和结果共同定义。因此，两者都需要仔细审视。学生既需要学习如何实现X，也需要研究X是什么。

段落F

It is at this point that‘Arson for Profit’becomes supremely relevant.That course is presumably all about means:how to detect and prosecute criminal activity.It is therefore assumed that the end is good in an ethical sense.When I ask fire science students to articulate the end,or purpose,of their field,they eventually generalize to something like,‘The safety and welfare of society,’which seems right.As we have seen,someone could use the very same knowledge of means to achieve a much less noble end,such as personal profit via destructive,dangerous,reckless activity.But we would not call that firefighting.We have a separate word for it:arson.Similarly,if you employed the‘principles of marketing’in an unprincipled way,you would not be doing marketing.We have another term for it:fraud.Kant gives the example of a doctor and a poisoner,who use the identical knowledge to achieve their divergent ends.We would say that one is practicing medicine,the other,murder.

正是在这一点上，纵火谋利变得十分相关起来。该课程的一切都与手段有关：如何侦测与起诉犯罪活动。人们因此假定，其目的在伦理意义上是好的。当我要求纵火科学的学生说清楚他们所学领域的结果或目的时，他们最终会总结出类似“社会安全与福祉”这样似乎正确的说法。正如我们所见，一个人可以使用完全相同的知识手段来实现不那么高尚的目标，比如通过破坏性的、危险的、鲁莽的行为来获取个人利益。但我们不会将其称为消防行为。我们对其有单独的说法：纵火。相似的，如果你以一种不遵守原则的方式利用市场营销原理，那么你所做的就不是市场营销。我们有另外的说法：欺诈。康德举了医生和投毒者的例子。他们利用完全相同的知识实现不同的结果。我们会说其中一人在进行医学实践，而另一个则是杀人犯。

>> 雅思 托福 免费测试、量身规划、让英语学习不再困难<<