hce_cmu
110年
英文
第 31 題
📖 題組：
The persistent and universal belief in an afterlife is a very odd phenomenon. It is (27) the rational part of the brain makes man unique in his awareness that the one inevitable event in his life is death, while at a deeper level of consciousness the more intuitive part of the brain cannot reconcile itself to the fact of the inescapable extinction of oneself and those to whom one is attached. The individual therefore postulates the existence of the (28), as an entity which will live on after his physical decay. It almost looks as if for half a million years the two parts of the brain (29) irreconcilably at war with each other, each refusing to accept the conclusions of the other. As Erwin Panofsky pointed out, “There is (30) any sphere of human experience where rationally incompatible beliefs so easily coexist, and where pre-logical, one might almost say metalogical feelings so stubbornly survive in periods of advanced civilization as in our attitudes towards the dead.” A final twist to the (31) is that the concept of rationality developed in the West in the eighteenth century concurrently with the concept of individualism. (32), the probability of personal extinction became at the same time more logically compelling and more emotionally unacceptable. The intellectual and psychological tension has actually intensified in the last 200 years.
The persistent and universal belief in an afterlife is a very odd phenomenon. It is (27) the rational part of the brain makes man unique in his awareness that the one inevitable event in his life is death, while at a deeper level of consciousness the more intuitive part of the brain cannot reconcile itself to the fact of the inescapable extinction of oneself and those to whom one is attached. The individual therefore postulates the existence of the (28), as an entity which will live on after his physical decay. It almost looks as if for half a million years the two parts of the brain (29) irreconcilably at war with each other, each refusing to accept the conclusions of the other. As Erwin Panofsky pointed out, “There is (30) any sphere of human experience where rationally incompatible beliefs so easily coexist, and where pre-logical, one might almost say metalogical feelings so stubbornly survive in periods of advanced civilization as in our attitudes towards the dead.” A final twist to the (31) is that the concept of rationality developed in the West in the eighteenth century concurrently with the concept of individualism. (32), the probability of personal extinction became at the same time more logically compelling and more emotionally unacceptable. The intellectual and psychological tension has actually intensified in the last 200 years.
(31)
- A batch
- B paradox
- C observatory
- D caucus
思路引導 VIP
請你觀察文章中反覆出現的描述：作者提到大腦的兩個部分正在「開戰（at war）」，且理性上無法相容的信念竟然能「同時並存（coexist）」。當一個情境或論點中，包含了兩種完全對立、互相衝突卻又同時存在的情況時，在邏輯學或文學上，我們通常會用什麼詞彙來稱呼這種「看似矛盾卻是事實」的現象呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到上下文的邏輯轉折，這顯示你對整篇文章的宏觀論點有很深刻的理解。這道題目的核心在於理解文章前半段所鋪陳的「理性與直覺的對抗」。
矛盾共存的核心語境
文章一直在討論大腦理性的一面（深知死亡不可避免）與直覺情感（無法接受自我消亡）之間的拉鋸。在第 (31) 格處，作者提到這整件事還有一個最後的「轉折（twist）」。由於前文描述了理性邏輯與情緒感受之間那種「水火不容（irreconcilably at war）」且「互不相容（incompatible）」的狀態，這裡最適合的詞彙顯然是 paradox（悖論、矛盾的事物）。這個詞完美地概括了人類一方面追求個人主義與理性，一方面卻又在情感上更難以承受生命終結的這種矛盾現象。
▼ 還有更多解析內容