True godliness means imitation of God, the exercise of one's power In a manner that is godlike, good, life-affirming and so on.
真正的神性是效仿上帝,施展权力,用与上帝相仿的善良的方式。
And then we're going to turn to the question, is it really true that immortality would be good?
然后我们就要问,永生不死真的是好的吗?
That's what the serpent omitted in his speech. He said If you eat of that fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, It's true in one sense but it's false in another.
这就是蛇的话语中所忽略的,他说,如果你吃了分辨善恶智慧树的果实,从一方面来说它是对的,但从另一方面却是错的。
Now, that was true in Sloane but I think Luce has got very good acoustics so you can stretch out in the back.
在斯隆那边确实是这样的,但是卢斯这里的音响效果很好,所以在后面也能睡好
I'm not sure if it's altogether true, but it's a good story, at least, about the famous German philosopher who said that on his first teaching of the Republic, he went through the whole book, ! taught the whole book in one seminar, one semester.
不确定是否都对,但是讲得很好,至少,讲者是著名德国哲学家,他在首堂讲授《理想国》的课中如此提问,然后教完整本巨著,整本巨著在一个学期内教完,一个学期。
If you wanted something, and this is still true in France today, it doesn't do any good to go to the local notable, like you did in the eighteenth century and say, "hey,monsieur,the little guy, it would be great if we had a school."
如果你想要什么东西,这在今天的法国仍然是事实,去当地的贵族那里绝无收获,就像是你在十八世纪的时候说,"嘿,小子,如果我有一所学校就再好不过了"
..That's just as good as the land that you took, so... That's true. Locke says there has to be this right to private property in the earth is subject to the provision that there be as much and as good left for others. What's your name?
而且是跟你占有的土地一样好的。,的确如此,洛克说过,土地私人所有必须遵守的是,还有足够多足够好的土地留给别人,你叫什么?
So we're to assume we can get to any piece of data, any instruction in constant time, and the second assumption we're going to make is that the basic primitive steps take constant time, same amount of time to compute. Again, not completely true, but it's a good model, so arithmetic operations, comparisons, things of that sort, we're all going to assume are basically in that in that particular model.
因此如果我们假设在恒定的时间内,我们可以取得任何一块数据,任何一种数据结构的话,我们要做的第二个假设就是,基本的原始操作计算花费的时间是恒定的,这个假设也不是完全正确的,但这个模型其实挺不错的,因此算法操作,比较,这一类的事情,我们在这个特定的模型中都假设是基本的,操作,花费的时间是恒定相同的。
Could it be true, is there any good reason to believe it is true, that nobody believes they're going to undergo bodily death?
有没有任何理由相信,没人会相信自己肉体的消亡呢?
Second question: Even if logic doesn't require that ? is it true that immortality's a good thing?
第二个问题,即使逻辑性不要求,永生真的是好事吗?
But it's also true that Righty's got half of Shelly Kagan's brain and that seems good enough.
但小右也有Shelly,Kagan的半个大脑,同样也够了。
It's true that Lefty's got half of Shelly Kagan's brain and that's good enough.
确实小左有Shelly,Kagan半个大脑,这样也够了。
应用推荐