About Sophie：
As an English lover, she is trying to read and translate ** Beyond Feelings ** in spare time recently.
Welcome to correct and communicate with her.
Thanks a lot.

Sophie's Words：
序言介紹該書出版前，主流知識分子的思維方式以及作者寫這本書的原因；同時也闡明了為何選擇樸實語言風格的理由。
2017/4/24

Preface

When the first edition of this book appeared in 1975, the dominant intellectual focus was still subjectivity, feelings. That focus, the legacy of the 1960s, was originally a necessary reaction to the rationalism and behaviorism that preceded it. It declared, **in effect: **“People are not robots. They are more than the sum total of their physiology. They have hopes, dreams, emotions. No two humans are alike—each has a special perspective, a unique way of perceiving the world. And any view of humanity that ignores this subjective side is a distortion.”

譯文：

前言

1975年，當該書的第一版問世時，主流知識分子仍然關注于主觀及各種感受。關注主觀感受——作為19世紀60年代的產物，起初是對先于它而存在的【理想主義和行為主義】必然反應。實際上，【關注主觀和感受】的觀點認為：“人不是機器人，他們超過一切生理機能的總和。除此之外，人類還有希望，夢想，感覺；沒有兩個人是相同的，每個人都有獨特的視角，一種感知世界的特有方式。并且，任何忽視這種主觀性的人性觀點都是一種曲解?！?/p>

legacy 英 ['leg?s?] 美 ['l?g?si] n. 遺贈，遺產
rationalism ['r??(?)n(?)l?z(?)m] n. 理性主義；唯理主義
behaviorism [bi'heivi?riz(?)m] n. 行為主義
an approach to psychology that emphasizes observable measurable behavior
** declare ** 英 [d?'kle?] 美 [d?'kl?r]
vt. 宣布，聲明；斷言，宣稱
vi. 聲明，宣布
** in effect** 實際上；生效
** physiology** 英 [,f?z?'?l?d??] 美 ['f?z?'ɑl?d?i] n. 生理學；生理機能
distortion 英 [d?'st???(?)n] 美 [d?s't?r??n] n. 變形；[物] 失真；扭曲；曲解

Yet, despite its value, the focus on feelings went too far. Like many other movements, what began as a reaction against an extreme view became an extreme view itself. The result of that extremism was the neglect of thinking. This book was designed to answer that neglect. The introduction to the first edition explained its rationale as follows:

The emphasis on subjectivity ** served to** correct a dangerous oversimplification. But it is the kind of reaction that cannot be sustained for long without causing an even worse situation—the neglect of thinking. Worse for two reasons.

譯文：
然而，盡管有其價值，但人們曾經過多重視感受。就像許多其他的運動一樣，最開始以作為反對極端觀點的反應最后本身也成了極端，產生的結果是忽視思考的極端主義。該書就是計劃解答這種忽視問題。第一版概述對其基本原理的解釋如下：
強調主觀有助于糾正過度簡化的危險，但它不能長期保持不會導致更糟的情況——忽視思考；兩個理由如下。

neglect 英 [n?'glekt] 美 [n?'gl?kt]
fail to give them the amount of attention that they deserve. 忽視
rationale 英 [,r???'nɑ?l] 美 [,r???'n?l] n. 基本原理；根本原因
serve to用來，有助于

First, because we live in an age of manipulation. Armies of ** hucksters** and demagogues stand ready with the rich resources of psychology to play upon our emotions and subconscious needs to persuade us that superficial is profound, harmful is beneficial, evil is virtuous. And feelings are especially vulnerable to such manipulation.

譯文：
首先，由于我們處于一個操縱時代。大批的商販和煽動者時刻準備了豐富的心理源作用在我們的感覺和潛意識需求上，說服我們相信膚淺就是深刻，有害就是有益，邪惡就是善良。同時，面對這樣的操縱，感受尤為易受攻擊。

疑難雜句：
Armies of hucksters and demagogues stand ready with the rich resources of psychology to play upon our emotions and subconscious needs to persuade us that superficial is profound, harmful is beneficial, evil is virtuous.

huckster英 ['h?kst?] 美 ['h?kst?]
vt. 叫賣；討價還價
n. 叫賣的小販；小商人；吃廣告飯的人
vi. 叫賣；做小商販
demagogue 英 ['dem?g?g] 美 [?d?m?ɡɑɡ] n. 煽動者；煽動家；煽動政治家
** subconscious =unware**
virtuous 英 ['v??tj??s; -t???s] 美 ['v?t?u?s] adj. 善良的；有道德的
be vulnerable to 易受……攻擊/侵害的

Secondly, because in virtually every important area of modern life— law, medicine, government, education, science, business, and community affairs—we are beset with serious problems and complex issues that demand careful gathering and weighing of facts and informed opinions, thoughtful consideration of various conclusions or actions, and judicious selection of the best conclusion or most appropriate action. . . .

譯文：
第二，因為幾乎在現(xiàn)代生活中的每一個重要領域——法律、醫(yī)藥、政府、教育、科學、商業(yè)以及社區(qū)事務——我們被嚴肅且復雜的問題包圍，這些問題無一不需要細心收集斟酌的事實及有根據(jù)的評價，對各種結論或行為的深思熟慮，以及對最好結論或最宜行為的公正抉擇。

be beset with 被……包圍
thoughtful consideration 深思熟慮

[Today’s college student] has been conditioned not to undervalue subjectivity, but to overvalue it. And so he does not need to have his feelings indulged. Rather, he needs to be taught how to sort out his feelings, decide to what extent they have been shaped by external influences, and evaluate them carefully when they conflict among themselves or with the feelings of others. In short, he needs to be taught to think critically.*

譯文：
當今的大學生習慣于不去低估反而高估主觀性；所以他不需要放任自己的情感。然而，他需要學會如何區(qū)分他的情感，決定在多大程度上受外部影響合適，當他的情感和周圍的事物沖突或者其他人的情感沖突時能仔細評估他們。簡而言之，就是需要學會如何批判性思考。

Be conditioned to習慣于；以…為條件

There is an unfortunate tendency among many to view feeling and thought as mutually exclusive, to force a choice between them. If we focus on one, then in their view we must reject the other. But this is mistaken. Feeling and thought are perfectly complementary. Feeling, being more spontaneous, is an excellent beginning to the development of conclusions. And thought, being more deliberate, provides a way to identify the best and most appropriate feeling. Both are natural.

Thinking, however, is less automatic than feeling. To do it well demands a systematic approach and guided practice.

譯文：
這有一個不幸的趨勢，許多人認為感覺和思想是相互排斥的，非得在兩者之間做一個選擇；如果關注其中一個，在他們的觀念中就一定要排除另外一個——但這種想法錯誤的。感覺和思考是完美互補的；感覺，更多的是無意識的，是發(fā)展結論的極好開始；思想，更多是深思熟慮，提供了一個鑒定最好最合適的感覺的方法；二者都是天生的。
然而與感覺相比，思考自發(fā)性較少；好的思考需要系統(tǒng)的方法和指導性的實踐。

spontaneous 英 [sp?n'te?n??s] 美 [spɑn'ten??s] adj. 自發(fā)的；自然的；無意識的
deliberate 英 [d?'l?b(?)r?t] 美 [d?'l?b?r?t]
adj. 故意的；深思熟慮的；從容的
vt. 仔細考慮；商議

The general attitude toward thinking has changed considerably since the mid-1970s. The view that critical thinking is an important skill to which education should give prominence is no longer a minority view. Hundreds of voices have joined the chorus calling for the addition of critical thinking objectives to existing courses and even the creation of special courses in thinking. There is little disagreement that the challenges of the new millennium demand minds that can move beyond feelings to clear, impartial, critical problem solving and decision making.

譯文：
自19世紀70年代中期以來，大眾對思考的態(tài)度有了極大的改變。認為“批判性思考是一項重要的技能，其教育應當予以重視”已不再是一個小眾觀點了。成百上千的人呼吁增加批判性思考到現(xiàn)有課程里，甚至要求創(chuàng)建思考方面的特殊課程。幾乎沒人同意新世紀的挑戰(zhàn)需要這么一種“可行進至超越直覺到清晰、公正、解決批判性問題并作出決定”的思想，。

prominence 英音 /'pr?m?n?ns/ 美音 /'prɑm?n?ns/ n. 聲望, 杰出,突出;重要;要事
** millennium ** 英音 /m?'len??m/ 美音 /m??l?ni?m/
n. 一千年,千年期;太平盛世

Features of This Edition

This edition of Beyond Feelings retains the basic organization of previous editions. The first section explains the psychological, philosophical, and social context in which critical thinking takes place and describes the habits and attitudes that enhance such thinking. The second section helps students recognize and overcome common errors in thinking. The third section provides a step-by-step strategy for dealing with issues.

譯文：

該版本的特征

這個版本的【超越直覺】保留了之前版本的基本構架。
第一部分解釋了批判性思考產生的心理學、哲學以及社會學環(huán)境；同時描述了加強這種思考的習慣和態(tài)度。
第二部分幫助學生意識并克服在思考中的一般錯誤。
第三部分提供了一個處理棘手問題的攻略。

Within the overall design, however, I have made a number of changes, most in response to the helpful suggestions of reviewers.

In Chapter 1, a new section—“The Influence of Ideas”has been added.
In Chapter 3, a new section—“Understanding Cause and Effect”has been added.
In Chapter 15, new examples of the value of observation have been added.
In Chapter 17, the subsection“Evaluate your information sources”has been expanded.
A number of new “Difference of Opinion” exercises have been added.

譯文：
然而，在整本書的布局中，我做了一些改變，大部分是出于對評論者的有用建議的回應。
第一章， 新加了【思想的影響】這一節(jié)。
第三章， 新加了【理解因果】這一節(jié)。
第十五章，新加了【觀察的價值】的實例。
第十七章，拓展了【評估你的信息源】的字節(jié)。
還加了不少關于新的【不同意見】的練習。

As in the past, I have attempted to follow George Orwell’s sage advice: “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” This is not always easy. When logicians are taught terms such as **argumentum ad hominem, non sequitur, and “affirming the consequent,” ** they naturally want to use them. Arguments for doing so urge themselves upon us: for example, “These are the most precise terms. Don’t join the ranks of the coddlers and deprive students of them.” In weak moments I succumb to this appeal. (Until the previous edition, for example, I included the term enthymeme. Mea culpa . . . there I go again.) But is the precision of such terms the real reason for my wanting to use them? Is it not possible that we professors enjoy parading our knowledge or that we are reluctant to spare our students the struggle we were forced to undergo (“We suffered, so they should too”)? It seems to me that modern culture already provides too many impediments to critical thinking for us to add more.

譯文：
同過去一樣，我試圖接受George Orwell給的明智建議——“如果你可以想到等效的日常英語詞匯就不要用外來詞匯、科學詞匯或術語?！边@并非一件容易的事情。當邏輯學家被教會了argumentum ad hominem, non sequitur, affirming the consequent，諸如此類的術語時，他們會自然而然地想要去用它們。這些深入骨髓的論據(jù)總會把它們強加給我們：比如“這些是最簡潔的術語。不要成為嬌聲慣養(yǎng)的一員，并剝奪他們的學生?！痹谝庵玖Ρ∪醯臅r候，我會屈服于這些呼吁。（例如，直到上一個版本，我還應用了術語enthymeme.這是我的過失，又用了。）
但我用它們是因為這些術語的精準性嗎？
沒有可能是因為我們教授享受炫耀知識或不愿讓學生免受我們當年被迫承受的掙扎？（我們受過，所以他們也應當承受）？
在我看來現(xiàn)代文化已經給了在批判性思考方面給了我們太多阻礙，而不能繼續(xù)再增加了。

疑難雜句：
Arguments for doing so urge themselves upon us: for example, “These are the most precise terms. Don’t join the ranks of the coddlers and deprive students of them.
** succumb** 英 [s?'k?m] 美 [s? ?'k?m] vi. 屈服；死；被壓垮
mea culpa 英 ['mi:?'k?lp?] 我應負的責任；我的過失
parade 英 [p?'re?d] 美 [p?'red]
n. 游行；閱兵；炫耀；行進；閱兵場v. 游行；炫耀；列隊行進
spare sb. sth.使某人幸免于……
** It seems to me ** 在我看來

Is it possible to carry this plain language commitment too far? Yes, and some will think I have done so in avoiding the term inferences and speaking instead of conclusions. But I respectfully disagree. Lexicographers point out that the distinction between these terms is extremely subtle, so it seems more reasonable not to devote time to it. Also, I avoid using the term values whenever possible for a somewhat different reason. The word value is so associated with relativism that its use in this context can undermine the crucial idea that arguments differ in quality. For many students, the word value triggers the thought, “Everyone has a right to his or her values; mine are right for me, and though they may need ‘clarification’ from time to time, they are never to be questioned.” This thought impedes critical thinking.

譯文：
有可能恪守這種平白語言的承諾到很遠處嗎？
是，而且有人認為我在避免術語推理及用說代替結論方面這么做了；但恕難同意。
詞典學家指出這些術語之間的差別是很微小的，所以不用它們似乎更為合理。同樣，任何可能的時候會因為一些不同的理由，我會避免使用術語values（價值觀）. Value 在相對論情境中使用會削弱批判性思維，它和相對論關聯(lián)如此之大，以至論據(jù)質量上是存在差異。對于許多學生來說，value這個詞是會觸發(fā)這么一個想法“每一個人都有一個價值觀；對我自己而言我的是正確的，盡管它們可能需要不時澄清，但從來無需置疑”。這種想法會阻礙批判性思考。

疑難雜句：
Is it possible to carry this plain language commitment too far?
The word value is so associated with relativism that its use in this context can undermine the crucial idea that arguments differ in quality.

** lexicographer** 英 [,leks?'k?gr?f?] 美 [,l?ks?'kɑɡr?f?] n. 詞典編纂者
** relativism** 英 ['rel?t?v?z(?)m] 美 ['r?l?t?v?z?m] n. 相對主義；相對論

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my appreciation to all those who contributed to the preparation of this edition. Special thanks to those who reviewed the manuscript:

Anna Villegas, San Joaquin Delta College;
Aimee Bissonette, Inver Hills Community College;
James Kruser, Alfred State College;
Sue Crowson, Del Mar College;
Erin Murphy, University of Kentucky;
Adrian Patten, University of Cincinnati;
Dedaimia Storrs Whitney, Franklin College;
Lisa Weisman-Davlantes, California State–Fullerton;
Geoffrey Phillip Bellah, Orange Coast College;
Karen Hoffman, Hood College;
Aimee Ross-Kilroy, Loyola Marymount University;
Deanna Davis, College of the Canyons

I am also grateful to John Augustine, Delta College; Lori Ebert, International Institute of the Americas; John Garcia, Cerro Coso Community College; Michael Small, Shasta College; Joel Brouwer, Montcalm Community College; Cynthia Gobatie, Riverside Community College; Anne Benvennti, Cerro Coso College; Fred Heifner Jr., Cumberland University; and Phyllis Toy, University of Southern Indiana.

譯文：

致謝

我想對所有為這次出版做出貢獻的人表示感激，尤其要感謝這些修訂者：
Anna Villegas, San Joaquin Delta College;
Aimee Bissonette, Inver Hills Community College;
James Kruser, Alfred State College;
Sue Crowson, Del Mar College;
Erin Murphy, University of Kentucky;
Adrian Patten, University of Cincinnati;
Dedaimia Storrs Whitney, Franklin College;
Lisa Weisman-Davlantes, California State–Fullerton;
Geoffrey Phillip Bellah, Orange Coast College;
Karen Hoffman, Hood College;
Aimee Ross-Kilroy, Loyola Marymount University;
Deanna Davis, College of the Canyons

我同樣也非常感謝以下學者的付出：
John Augustine, Delta College;
Lori Ebert, International Institute of the Americas;
John Garcia, Cerro Coso Community College;
Michael Small, Shasta College;
Joel Brouwer, Montcalm Community College;
Cynthia Gobatie, Riverside Community College;
Anne Benvennti, Cerro Coso College;
Fred Heifner Jr., Cumberland University;
Phyllis Toy, University of Southern Indiana.