人生存的小故事.docx

人生存的小故事【篇一：人生存的小故事】2016-02-02 通常有两种人能够取得成功，一种把成功当成追求，另一种被生存逼迫，不成功就成仁。而剩下的那些人，则只能碌碌一生。到现在为止，我觉得，生存是一个人首先要面对的事情。大部分人和我一样，没有一个有钱的爸爸，因此在【篇二：人生存的小故事】有关生存的故事范文一：它躺在那儿,又暖和又开心,不久就开始高兴地唱起歌来了. 一只路过的猫听到了小鸟的歌声,走过来查个究竟. 顺着声音,猫发现了躲在牛粪中的小鸟,于是 非常敏捷地将它刨了出来,并把它给吃了!copyright 2004 nlp 中国之家 版权所有企业课程之三这个故事的寓意是1. 不是每个在你身上拉屎的 都是你的敌人. 2. 不是每个把你从屎堆中拉 出来的都是你的朋友. 3. 而且,当你陷入深深的屎 堆当中(身陷困境)的时 候,闭上你的鸟嘴!copyright 2004 nlp 中国之家 版权所有copyright 2004 nlp 中国之家 版权所有阅读详情：范文七：作者：王秋英家庭报 1999年07期一位学生家长向我讲述了这样一件事。她的儿子一向学习成绩顶呱呱，很让她这个做母亲的引以为荣。一次她生病在床，偏偏丈夫出差，好不容易盼到读高二的儿子回家，有个倒杯热水的人了。没想到儿子放学回家看到冷锅冷灶，一句“我出去吃吧”转身就走了。回来后像往常一样钻进房间做作业，没有一句知冷知热的话，更没想到卧病在床的妈妈一天滴水未进。做母亲的伤心感慨，头一次觉得儿子的分数不那么让人安慰。这使我想到一个有趣却发人深省的现象。与过去的20年相比，家庭教育被提到前所未有的高度受到前所未有的重视，家长在儿女身上倾注的心血，投入的资本可谓感天动地，而为什么我们从孩子身上得到的越来越少？为什么孩子们变得越来越麻木冷漠，表现出越来越明显的“情感低能”，对他人、对社会、对理想的责任感越来越稀薄？“爱的麻痹症”可谓现代独生子女的通病。这种付出与得到的强烈反差很能说明目前家庭教育中存在的弊端。长久以来，我们呼吁提倡的都是“学会生存”，重智商、重分数、重学历是家庭教育中的主旋律，家长都希望孩子藉此在竞争激烈的现代社会杀出一条血路来。于是，当孩子表现出忧伤、恐惧、愤怒的时候，我们并不去刨根问底，并不想搞清楚孩子真正想要的是什么，我们关心的只是孩子会几种特长，在书桌前坐了多少小时以及拿回家的成绩单。另一方面，为了让孩子为分数全力以赴，做家长的包办了孩子生活中的一切，从整理书包到志向选择。久而久之，父母的付出和牺牲成了理所当然，孩子体验爱的能力在慢慢消失殆尽，他们从未“饥饿”过，怎知付出的劳顿，得到的珍贵？他们不会同情弱者，只会崇尚强者；他们不会体验别人的苦痛，只看到自己的得失；他们不懂得分享，只追求独立拥有。他们既不会体验与表达，更不懂得付出与分享，从而慢慢丧失了做人的乐趣和能力，不是他们不愿，而是不能。于是有了为一己利益坑害他人，为大学学费把贫困边缘的父亲送上公堂的“奇闻怪事”。情形似乎还不止如此。当孩子成为获取知识和分数的机器，爱的“消化能力”日益衰竭，心理问题却在急剧上升。一名五年级男生，从半年前开始一走进教室就觉得嗓子奇痒，吞咽困难，上课时干咳不止。老师以为他在故意捣乱，但屡教不改。后来被医生诊断为“神经性咽堵综合症”，主要是由学习紧张、心理压力过大引起的。近年心理疾病的发病率急剧上升与我们的家庭教育不无关系。为此，西方心理学家提出应付压力的最好方法是“利他主义”积极考虑他人，与所有人建立爱的关系。一个人只有学会关心，学会从“邻居处获取爱”，才能不会失望，也才能学会生存，这是成功的关键。这一点，恐怕是我们众多家长所没有想到的，也是我们的家庭教育“种瓜得豆”的原因所在吧。明智的家长们，要想孩子获得生存的能力，打好成功的基石，就让孩子从学会关心开始吧。范文八：适者生存此片语乃一种隐喻，并非科学描述；生物学家一般不用此片语，而只是称之为自然选择。evolution and philosophy does evolution make might right?by john s. wilkinsjohn s. wilkinscopyright ? 1997summary: evolutiondoes not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.number of critics see the use of selection theory in other than biological contexts as forcing malign political and moral commitments.a prime example of this is sociobiology, which is supposed to result in such things as eugenics, racism, and the death of the welfare state.sociobiology, and the more recent evolutionary psychology movement, seeks to explain human behavior in terms of the adaptations of human evolution. gould especially has been vitriolic in his attacks on socio-biological explanations. it is thought by some to result in a completely selfish ethic known as rational egoism.another such view isthe claims made by social darwinists and their heirs suffer from the ethical fallacy known asin fact, pevolutionary theory doesnt exclude purpose from life, although it does remove the need for purposive design from a lot of the living realm (ie, all but the genetically engineered bit of the living realm). this apparent confusion is resolved if we ask of evolutionary theory two questions: one, is there a design evident in the structure of living organisms? two, is there a universal purpose to life in general? science answers no to the first question. design is not directly evident in living things, although there is a marvelous complexity and adaptivity of life to its environment. to the second question, science of any kind answers: insufficient information. that kind of answer you get elsewhere - from a personal commitment or religious belief in some revelation.metaphysics is the name given to a branch of philosophical thought that deals with issues of the fundamental nature of reality and what is beyond experience. it literally meansmetaphysical systems come in three main flavors: philosophical systems (overall systems such as kants or hegels, or more recently whiteheads or collingwoods); ideologies , which are usually political, moral or other practical philosophical systems; and religions which in their theologies attempt to create comprehensive philosophical structures.a metaphysic is often derived from first principles by logical analysis. aristotle, for example, started with an analysis ofreligious metaphysics often attempt to marry a philosophical system with basic theses about the nature and purpose of god, derived from an authoritative scripture or revelation.in some traditions, metaphysics is seen to be a bad thing, especially in those views sometimes calledreasoning by number or matters of fact was mere sophistry and should be consigned to the flames (he exempted his own philosophical writings, apparently). this distaste stems from the excesses of the medieval scholastics, whose often empty formalism was applied to aquinas theology based on aristotles metaphysics. early science arose in part from the rejection of this vapid quibbling.no-one can deny that views such as luthers and marxs rely upon metaphysical assumptions and methods. if views like these come into conflict with science, then there are four options: change the science to suit the metaphysics; change the metaphysics to suit the science; change both to fit each other; or find a place for the metaphysics in ahistorically, evolutionary science grew out partly from natural theology such as paleys and chambers arguments from design, which defined the problems of biology in the early 19th century ruse 1979: chapter 3. these writers sought evidence of god in the appearance of design in the natural world, yet, only a century later, when the evolutionary biologist jbs haldane was asked what biology taught of the nature of god, he is reported to have repliedall the furor generated about the nature of chance in evolution is based not upon challenges to the scientific nature of the theory, but upon the need to find purpose in every facet of reality cf dennett 1995. often, this derives from religious conviction, but sometimes it arises from a more considered philosophical view.metaphysical theories tend to fall into two kinds: those that view everything in nature as the result of mind (idealisms) and those that view mind as the result of mechanisms of nature (naturalisms). one may take a naturalistic approach to some things, and still be an idealist in other domains; for example, one may accept with equanimity that minds are the result of certain sorts of physical brains and still consider, say,society or morality to be the result of the workings of mind. typically, though, idealism and naturalism are held as distinct and separate philosophical doctrines.idealists, including creationists, cannot accept the view that reality cares little for the aspirations, goals, moral principles, pain or pleasure of organisms, especially humans cf. dawkins 1995:132f. there has to be a purpose, they say and evolution implies there is no purpose. therefore, they say that evolution is a metaphysical doctrine of the same type as, but opposed to, the sort of religious or philosophical position taken by the idealist. worse, not only is it not science (because its a metaphysic, you see), its a pernicious doctrine because it denies mind. christian creationism may rely upon a literal interpretation of christian scripture, but its foundation is the view that gods mind (will) lies directly behind all physical phenomena. anything that occurs must take place because it is immediately part of gods plan; they believe that the physical world should, and does, provide proof of gods existence and goodness (extreme providentialism). evolution, which shows theappearance of design does not imply design, is seen to undercut this eternal truth, and hence they argue that it must be false. in the particular (actual) demonology of fundamentalism, it follows as acorollary that evolution is the work of the devil and his minions. note 11it should be noted that many evolutionists think that the mere fact and scientific theory of evolution in no way prohibits further moral or spiritual meaning, and many do not think that any particular purpose to the universe is implied just by evolution, but requires some religious or philosophical commitment.philosophers of science mostly conclude that science is metaphysics neutral, following the catholic physicist pierre duhem 1914. science functions the same way for hindus as for catholics, for frenchmen as for americans, for communists as for democrats, allowing for localised variations that are ironed out after a while. however, science does indeed rule out various religious etiological myths (origin stories), and often forces the revision of historical and medical stories used in the mythology of a religion. and when cosmologies are given in ancient scriptures that involve solid heavens, elephants and scarab beetles, science shows them to be unqualifiedly false as descriptions of the physical world as it is observed.science can rule out a metaphysical claim, then. is evolutionary science therefore a metaphysical weltanschauung (a nice pretentious german wordmeaning world-view)? i dont think so. many things claimed by metaphysical views such as fundamentalist christian biblical literalism are not themselves metaphysical claims. for example, the claim that the world is flat (if made by a religious text) is a matter of experiment and research, not first principles and revelation. ifmany of those who do hold religious views take the approach that they get their religion from their scriptures and their science from the scientific literature and community. they therefore treat the factual claims made in those scriptures the same way they treat the metaphysical views of scientists: as not germane to the function of that source of knowledgeberry 1988. does the fact that stephen jay gould admits to learning marxism at his fathers knee or richard dawkins to being an atheist mean that evolution is either marxist or atheistic (as so many immediately and fallaciously conclude)? of course not.note 12if it were the case that personal views of scientists defined the results of scientific work, then the broad range of metaphysical views ofpracticing scientists would mean that - at the same time - science was christian, hindu, marxist and probably even animist, as well as agnostic or atheist. while some extreme cultural relativists do try to claim that science is no more than the sum of its cultural environments, this view fails to explain how it is that science gets such consistent results and acquires such broad agreement on matters of fact. nevertheless, this does not stop idealists from sometimes disingenuously claiming that science is what you want (orthere is a tradition in modern western philosophy, dating at least from the romantic philosophers of the 18th century, that treats overall theories of the natural world as self-contained and self-validating systems of belief that are beyond criticism from other such systems. many christian and some jewish philosophers and theologians have claimed that christianity (or any religion) is indeed a self-contained weltanschauung, and that it is immune from attacks upon its claims by scientific research. this takes several forms. one theologian, rudolph bultmann, once said that even if jesus physical remains were found, christianity (as heinterpreted it) would still be true. others hold that all of science is just a religion, in the sense that it is a self-contained belief system, and therefore it cannot objectively disprove or challenge the claims made by another system (ie, christianity). this is the approach often taken by creationists.in the final analysis, this boils down to anhowever, the claim is sometimes, and more plausibly, made thatevolutionary theory, along with some other scientific theories, functions as a kind of attitudinal metaphysical system ruse 1989. it is (in my opinion, rightly) thought to influence the kinds of problems and solutions dealt with by science. there is no problem with this, since in order for a discipline to make any progress, the field of possible problems(essentially infinite, to use a malapropism) must be restricted to some set of plausible and viable research options. the theory of evolution as now consensually held acts to narrow the range and limit the duplication required. this is harmless, and is true of any field of science.ruse also describes what he callsother than this, thethose who need cosmic meaning need not fear that any version ofevolutionary theory prohibits it; although neither does nor can it support it. those evolutionists who have either argued in favor of cosmic meaning on the basis of evolutionary theory, or have argued that there can be no cosmic meaning because things evolve, are both wrong. the conclusions do not follow from t