He early became convinced that the shortest way would not be the best. In his view, all endeavour at religious, moral, or political reorganisation, must be vain so long as mental reorganisation has not taken place. It is therefore with a new philosophy that he must begin. Indispensable to the social end which Comte has in view, philosophy becomes, at least provisionally, an end in itself.
Comte is going to endeavour to reorganise beliefs, that is to say, to substitute a demonstrated faith to the revealed faith whose force is now spent. This demonstrated faith will have nothing in common with the natural religion of the XVIII. century, which was at bottom but a weak and degenerate5 form of belief in the supernatural. Under the metaphysical garb6 of Deism we still recognise theological thought. On the contrary the demonstrated faith will have its origin and its justification8 in positive science.24 The two words “faith” and “demonstration9” appear to clash with each other. But the contradiction lies merely on the surface. For we are still concerned with “faith” since the great majority of men will always have to take on faith the conclusions of positive philosophy.
The number of men with sufficient leisure and enough culture to examine these conclusions and to go into their proofs will always be small. The attitude of the others must be one of submission11 and respect. But, differing on this point from the religious dogmas which humanity has known until now; the new faith will be “demonstrated.” It will contain nothing which has not been established and controlled by scientific methods, nothing which goes beyond the domain12 of the relative, nothing which at any moment cannot be proved to a mind capable of following the demonstration.
This form of “faith” already exists in the case of a great number of scientific truths. Thus all men to-day believe in the theory of the solar system which we owe to Copernicus, to Galileo and to Newton. Yet how many are in a position to understand the demonstrations13 upon which this theory rests? They know, however, that what here is a matter of faith to them, is a matter of science to others, and would be so equally for themselves had they gone through the necessary studies. Faith therefore signifies here not indeed a voluntary abdication14 of the intellect in presence of a mystery which surpasses its power of comprehension, but a submission to fact, which in no way encroaches upon the rights of reason. Every man is not capable, at any moment, of exercising this right to criticise15. In practice, Comte will severely16 restrict the use of it.9 But in theory this right belongs to all men, and must ever remain unalterable. In the last place the legitimate17 existence of the demonstrated faith rests upon this proposition: “If all minds were in a condition to examine the25 dogmas of that faith, all, without exception, would understand the demonstration, and would agree with it.”
The words “belief” and “faith” must not be misunderstood. In the “reorganisation of beliefs” which he undertakes, Comte only concerns himself with beliefs capable of demonstration. He is here faithful to the thought of Saint Simon, who understood “religion” chiefly as a basis of political organisation4. At any rate, in the early part of his philosophical18 career Comte does not bring into “faith” the mystical, sentimental19 and non-intellectual elements which this word usually implies and which so often oppose it to “reason.” The word signifies for Comte that which man believes concerning what may be for him a subject of knowledge. Until now these beliefs have set forth20 a more or less mythical21 or metaphysical explanation of the universe and of man, taught by priests and philosophers. But this no longer satisfies the human mind. By degrees positive science, which works on a totally different plan, substitutes a knowledge of the laws of phenomena22 to those “explanations.” From this moment the problem thus presents itself to Comte: To establish by rational means a system of universally accepted truths concerning man, society and the world.
Comte thus takes for granted: 1st, that the “opinions,” the “beliefs” and the “conceptions” relating to these matters, are to-day “anarchical”: 2nd, that their natural and normal condition is to be “organised.”
There is no need to prove the first part; a glance at contemporary society is enough. The confused disturbing movements which fill it with trouble and agitation23, and which, unless rational harmony be at last established, threaten its destruction are not due merely to political causes. They proceed from moral disorder24. And this in turn proceeds from intellectual disorder, that is to say from a lack of principles common to all minds,26 and from the absence of universally admitted conceptions and beliefs. For in order that a human society may subsist25, a certain harmony of sentiment or even common interests among its members will not suffice. Above all things, intellectual concord26 which finds expression in a body of common beliefs is necessary.
If, therefore, a society be a prey27 to chronic28 disorders29, which political remedies appear powerless to cure, one has every right to believe that the deep-rooted evil has its origin in intellectual disorganisation. All other troubles are merely symptoms. This, according to Comte, is precisely30 the state of contemporary society. It has neither “intellectual” nor “spiritual” government, and does not even feel the want of it. The minds of men recognise no common discipline. Not a principle subsists31 which negative and “corrosive” criticism has not attacked. The individual erects32 himself as a judge of all things—philosophy, ethics33, politics, religion. The opinion which he adopts most frequently without any special qualification for so doing, and according to his passions, always appears to him to have as much right to be admitted as those of other men. He claims to be amenable34 to no one for his thoughts. And this scattering35 (later on Comte will say insurrection) of intelligences is what he calls a state of anarchy36.
But, we may say, does not this state represent the ordinary condition of human societies? Perhaps the “organic” state only appears occasionally and as an exception? Such a supposition is groundless. For, if such were the case societies could not subsist, and above all could not develop. We must admit, on the contrary, that periods of intellectual anarchy form the exception, and that in a normal state of society men are united by their unanimous submission to a sufficiently37 large body of principles and beliefs. History confirms this view. The immobility of civilisation38 in the Far-East is27 especially due to the intellectual stability which distinguishes it from our own condition. The societies of Antiquity39 (Grecian and Roman), rested upon a conception of man, of citizenship40 and of the world, which, as a matter of fact, scarcely varied41 during the whole period of their existence. Lastly, in the Middle-ages, Christianity had constituted an admirable spiritual authority. The organisation of Catholicism, “a masterpiece of political sagacity,” had established a body of beliefs which all minds accepted with complacent43 docility44. It is the decomposition45 of this great system which has produced the majority of the evils with which we are now struggling. Mental anarchy is therefore truly an abnormal state, a pathological fact, what Comte will call later on the “western disease,” a mortal disease if it is to be prolonged. Either modern society must perish, or minds must regain46 their stable equilibrium47 by submission to common principles.
The problem of the organisation of beliefs would seem to come under two heads. In the first place we have the philosophical problem: how to establish a system of principles and beliefs capable of being universally admitted; and, in the second place, a social problem: how to bring all minds into the new faith. But this distinction only appears on the surface. As a matter of fact, the solution of the first problem will necessarily imply that of the second. Does not the principal cause for the lack of common discipline lie in the disorder which troubles the mind of each individual? If intellects are divided among themselves it is because each intellect is divided against itself. Let one of them succeed in establishing a perfect harmony within itself, and by the mere10 force of logic7, this harmony, by gradual diffusion48 will be communicated to the others—once true philosophy is established, the rest will only be a matter of time. It will therefore suffice to examine the opinions and beliefs which actually exist in one mind, and to inquire into the conditions28 necessary to substitute in it harmony to anarchy, or in a word, to realise within it a perfect logical coherence49.
As Descartes, in order to test all his knowledge, had only to examine the sources from which it originated, so Comte, in order to verify the logical compatibility of his opinions, will content himself with the consideration of the methods which have furnished him with them. If he discovers methods which mutually tend to exclude each other, he will have found the cause of the mental disorder which gives birth to all the evils we see troubling modern society. At the same time he will have discovered the remedy which will bring about the disappearance50 of those contradictions. The human mind is so constituted, that the first thing it requires is unity51. Understanding is spontaneously systematic52. Opinions merely in juxtaposition53 in the mind but logically irreconcilable54 cannot satisfy it. As a matter of fact, the contradiction, even when it is ignored, nevertheless impresses itself. Whether we know it or not, each of our opinions implies a complexus of connected opinions all arrived at by the same method as the one in question; and this complexus is itself part of the more considerable whole which finally completes itself in a comprehensive conception of the world given in experience.
Now Comte saw in himself, as in his contemporaries, two general methods, two “modes of thought” which cannot coexist without contradiction, although neither one nor the other has obtained a full mastery up to the present time. Concerning several categories of phenomena he thinks as a scholar trained in the school of Hobbes, of Galileo, of Descartes and of their successors. He does not seek to explain them by causes. When, by means of observation or deduction55, he has arrived at a knowledge of their laws he remains56 satisfied. For the knowledge of these laws allows him in certain cases to intervene in the phenomena, and to29 substitute to the natural order an artificial order better suited to his requirements. It is thus that mechanical, astronomical57, physical, chemical and even biological phenomena are objects of relative and positive science for him to-day.
But, as soon as the question is one of facts which originate in the human conscience, or which are connected with social life and with history, an opposite tendency becomes predominant. Instead of solely58 seeking for the laws of phenomena, our mind desires to explain them. It wants to find the essence and the cause. It speculates upon the human soul, upon the relation of that soul to the other realities of the universe, upon the end which society should have in view, upon the best possible government, upon the social contract, etc. All these questions arise from the “metaphysical” mode of thought, and this mode is formally incompatible59 with the preceding one. Yet we see both of them subsisting60 in our minds to-day.
Social dynamics61 will show how this condition must have been produced. But whatever the historical reasons may be, the reality is only too evident. The human mind to-day can neither adhere entirely62 to nor give up entirely one or the other of these two modes of thought. Undoubtedly63 it feels that the conquests of positive science are “irrevocable.” For example, how could it return to a metaphysical or theological explanation of astronomical or physical phenomena? But, on the other hand, metaphysical and theological conceptions seem to it no less indispensable. It does not believe it could do without them. And this is natural. For, to satisfy the desire for unity, which is its supreme requirement, the human mind demands a conception of the whole which embraces all the orders of phenomena, what Kant called a totalizing of experience, in a word a “philosophy.”
Now, up to the present time, the positive mode of thought has not shown itself in a position to respond to this30 demand. It has only produced individual sciences. Positive Science has been “special” and fragmentary, always attached to the investigation64 of a more or less restricted group of phenomena. With a laudable prudence65, which has made her strength, she has applied66 herself solely to works of analysis and partial synthesis. She has never ventured upon a synthesis of the whole of the real within our reach. Until now theologies and metaphysics alone have made the effort, and this office is, still to-day, the chief reason of their existence, this office must be fulfilled. The human mind is carried, by a spontaneous and necessary movement, towards the point of view of the universal. Sooner than leave the philosophical problems without an answer, it would remain attached indefinitely to the solutions, chimerical67 as they are, which the theologies and metaphysics offer him. In short, in the present state of things, the positive mind is “real” but “special.” The theologico-metaphysical mind is “universal” but “fictitious.” We can neither sacrifice the “reality” of science, nor the “universality” of philosophy. Which is the way out of this difficulty?
Three solutions alone are conceivable:
1. To find a reconciliation68 which will make it possible for the two modes of thought to coexist without contradiction:
2. To re-establish unity by making the theologico-metaphysical method universal:
3. To re-establish unity by making the positive method universal:
II.
The first solution at first sight appears to be the most acceptable. Why should not the positive investigation of the divers70 orders of natural phenomena be reconciled with a theological or metaphysical conception of the universe? Nothing prevents one from conceiving the phenomena as31 governed by invariable laws, and from seeking at the same time, by another method, for the reason which renders nature in general intelligible71. Positive science liberated72 at last from theology and metaphysics, would assure them of the independence which she claims for herself. Thus, with growing precision would be fixed73 the boundaries on the one hand of the domain proper of positive science, and on the other that of the speculation74 which goes beyond experience.
This reconciliation, says Comte, has for a long time been considered legitimate, because for a long time it was indispensable. Up to the present time Theology and Metaphysics have been the only comprehensive conceptions of the world which the human mind has formed. They have fulfilled a necessary function. Moreover, without them positive science could neither have originated nor have been developed. But, as she is their heiress, she is also their antagonist75. Her progress necessarily involves their downfall. The parallel history of religions and metaphysical dogmas on the one hand and of positive knowledge on the other shows that the conciliation69 between them has never been a lasting76 one.
Not that the antagonism77 between the two modes of thought can be solved by a supreme dialectical struggle in which the theological and metaphysical dogmas would be worsted. It is not thus that dogmas come to an end. They disappear, according to Comte’s striking expression, by desuetude78, as is the case with forsaken79 methods. As a matter of fact, have they not been as methods for the human mind, which sought within a single point of view to embrace the universality of things before they had been sufficiently studied? Man demanded from his imagination at first sight an absolute knowledge of the real, which reason could only give him at a later stage, on a very modest scale, entirely relative and after the patient labour of the sciences. But by degrees, as he has32 advanced in the positive study of phenomena, he has forsaken the theological and metaphysical “explanations.” Without relinquishing80 altogether the search after causes, he has taken the habit of relegating81 them to more and more remote regions. Already, in what concerns phenomena whose concept has reached a positive stage we can very well do without any assumption of causes. It suffices for us to represent these phenomena to ourselves as subject to laws. When all the phenomena of all orders are habitually82 conceived in this way, when the idea of their laws, whatever they may be, will have become equally familiar to us, the metaphysical mode of thought will have disappeared.
In a word, as soon as the whole of science shall have become positive, philosophy will necessarily be positive also: For we only have at our disposal one point of view concerning things. All our real knowledge bears upon phenomena and their laws. If, therefore, considered one by one, all the orders of phenomena are conceived according to the positive mode of thought, how could it be that considered together, and in their totality, they should be conceived according to a mode of thought completely different, and even inconsistent with the former one?
As a matter of fact, the coexistence of these two modes of thought lasts so long as the positive spirit has not reached its complete expansion, so long as a more or less considerable portion of natural phenomena is still explained by their essence, their cause, or their end. But this cannot be indefinitely prolonged. The more the positive spirit progresses, the more the theological and metaphysical conception of the world loses ground, and it becomes more evident that we must make our choice. The unity of the understanding the perfect logical coherence, are at this price.
The conciliation being set aside, the alternative either to think solely or not at all, according to the positive mode,33 presents itself. The traditionalists, and especially Joseph de Maistre, saw this aspect of the problem very clearly. Comte gives them very great credit for it. De Maistre admits no salvation83 for our society except in the complete return to the theological mode of thought. He thus attacks at its very source, or to put it more plainly, in its many sources, the spirit of modern philosophy. He does not spare Locke any more than the philosophers of the XVIII. century who proceed from him, Bacon any more than Locke; the promoters of the Reformation any more than Bacon. He understood that the XVIII. century came as a mighty84 conclusion of which the XVI. and XVII. centuries were the premisses, and that the great destructive syllogism85 had originated in a work of decomposition which began as early as the XIV. century. He is therefore perfectly86 consistent with himself, when he endeavours to combat this diabolical87 work, and to bring Europe back to the mental and religious condition of the Middle-ages. The re-establishment of the spiritual supremacy88 of the Pope would put an end to mental and moral anarchy. The catholic doctrine89 would restore to men’s minds that unity which is their supreme need.
This solution fulfils ideally the conditions of the problem, but, as a matter of fact, the solution is impracticable. The tide of history cannot flow back. In order to bring men’s minds once again under the sway of that spiritual power which they freely accepted in the Middle-ages, we should also have to reconstitute the totality of the conditions in which they lived at that time. How can we wipe from the pages of history the discovery of America, the invention of printing, and so many other great social facts? How can we pretend that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and all the heralds90 of positive Science never existed? And if, presuming what is impossible, we should succeed in restoring the mental and moral unity of Christian42 society in the Middle34-ages, how could we prevent the natural laws which have once brought about its decomposition, from producing again the same result?
We are thus necessarily brought to the third and last solution. Since the conciliation between the positive mode of thought and the other one is impossible; since the exclusive ascendency of the theologico-metaphysical mode of thought is out of the question; since when all is said the human mind needs a philosophy, it follows that that philosophy can only proceed from the positive mode of thought itself. There is nothing, a priori, to prevent this solution from being realised. For the last positions of the theologico-metaphysical spirit are surely not impregnable. This spirit, “fictitious” in its essence, never could become “real.” The positive spirit is only accidentally “special.” It is quite capable of acquiring the universality which it lacks. The new philosophy would then be founded, and the problem of perfect logical coherence would be solved.
The whole difficulty thus appears to be in “universalising” the positive mode of thought. To do this it must be extended to those phenomena which are still habitually conceived according to the theologico-metaphysical mode, that is to say, to the moral and social phenomena. This will be Comte’s crowning discovery. He will found “social physics.” By so doing he will take from theology and metaphysics the last reason of their existence. He will make possible the transition from a positive science to an equally positive philosophy. Thus will be realised “the unity of the understanding,” and this mental harmony will carry with it as its consequence the moral and religious harmony of humanity.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
attainable
|
|
| a.可达到的，可获得的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
degenerate
|
|
| v.退步，堕落；adj.退步的，堕落的；n.堕落者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
garb
|
|
| n.服装，装束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
abdication
|
|
| n.辞职；退位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
sentimental
|
|
| adj.多愁善感的，感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mythical
|
|
| adj.神话的；虚构的；想像的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
concord
|
|
| n.和谐；协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
chronic
|
|
| adj.(疾病)长期未愈的，慢性的；极坏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
subsists
|
|
| v.（靠很少的钱或食物）维持生活，生存下去( subsist的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
erects
|
|
| v.使直立，竖起( erect的第三人称单数 )；建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
amenable
|
|
| adj.经得起检验的；顺从的；对负有义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
scattering
|
|
| n.[物]散射；散乱，分散；在媒介质中的散播adj.散乱的；分散在不同范围的；广泛扩散的；（选票）数量分散的v.散射(scatter的ing形式)；散布；驱散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
complacent
|
|
| adj.自满的；自鸣得意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
docility
|
|
| n.容易教，易驾驶，驯服 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
decomposition
|
|
| n. 分解, 腐烂, 崩溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
regain
|
|
| vt.重新获得，收复，恢复 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
coherence
|
|
| n.紧凑；连贯；一致性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
disappearance
|
|
| n.消失，消散，失踪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
juxtaposition
|
|
| n.毗邻，并置，并列 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
astronomical
|
|
| adj.天文学的，（数字）极大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
subsisting
|
|
| v.（靠很少的钱或食物）维持生活，生存下去( subsist的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
dynamics
|
|
| n.力学，动力学，动力，原动力；动态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
chimerical
|
|
| adj.荒诞不经的，梦幻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
reconciliation
|
|
| n.和解，和谐，一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
conciliation
|
|
| n.调解，调停 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
divers
|
|
| adj.不同的；种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
liberated
|
|
| a.无拘束的，放纵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
antagonist
|
|
| n.敌人，对抗者，对手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
lasting
|
|
| adj.永久的，永恒的；vbl.持续，维持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
desuetude
|
|
| n.废止，不用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
Forsaken
|
|
| adj. 被遗忘的, 被抛弃的 动词forsake的过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
relinquishing
|
|
| 交出，让给( relinquish的现在分词 )； 放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
relegating
|
|
| v.使降级( relegate的现在分词 )；使降职；转移；把…归类 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
82
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
syllogism
|
|
| n.演绎法，三段论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
diabolical
|
|
| adj.恶魔似的，凶暴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
heralds
|
|
| n.使者( herald的名词复数 )；预报者；预兆；传令官v.预示( herald的第三人称单数 )；宣布（好或重要） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |