Work is the only route to happiness. Discuss.

The ideal put forward to young people has, traditionally, been 'mens sana in corpore sano', and this implies a proper balance between work and play. Yet to achieve happiness, that coveted but elusive state of total fulfilment, requires more. It is true that mankind in general, though with exceptions, has a built-in instinct for work. The vast gulf separating humanity from its physical origins, the animal world, is due to millennia of cerebral and physical activity. Yet there are other equally powerful instincts in the human make-up. The desire, in most cases, to form life-long emotional attachments; the instinct, again in most cases, to start a family; the making of friendships; the search for a fulfilling occupation, to name the most obvious.

In some countries there are a privileged few who are born into possessions, money and position, so the need to work in the normal sense does not apply to them. Yet it is noticeable that these people generally find some worthwhile occupation. This may be anything from estate management to patronage of some charitable institution to participation in the pop scene. This again indicates that to follow some kind of occupation, whether useful or not, is a genuine instinct.

History supports this view, and literature has produced many sayings expressing the value, perhaps the necessity of work. 'Satan hath some mischief yet for idle hands to do'; 'our best friend is work' (Collin d'Harleville); 'to youth I have but three words of counsel - work, work, work' (Bismarck); 'sow work and thou shalt reap gladness' (Proverb); 'work won't kill but worry will' (Proverb).

For most of us work is both a necessity and source of fulfilment. We need a regular income, just as our country needs part of the wealth we create and claims through taxation. The fulfilment of the instincts mentioned in Paragraph 1 cannot be achieved without money. The right use of money is of course important; Charles Dickens made the point that to live sixpence below one's income led to happiness; to live sixpence above led to misery.

The definition of work is wide, ranging from manual labor to the highest forms of intellectual activity. We are not all suited to every kind of work. I would be of little use as a manual worker, since my skills in that direction are limited. Conversely, not all manual workers could do my work. Among other things, I write a little. I was once asked 'What motivates you to write?', the questioner expecting some high-falutin answer. I was tempted to answer 'Money!' In fact the best writers have all taken this view. Only the second rate prattle about artistic fulfilment .

Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E60: Modern methods of transport have transformed our world into a village. Is this a blessing or a curse?

Source: www.englishdaily626.com
In some respects the topic-statement is true. Modern transport, especially by air, allows people to circle the globe in a few days, or hours, if an aircraft such as Concorde is used. Thus we have learnt to look upon distance as nothing. I can get to Paris from south-east England quicker than I can get to central London. So, the world has become a village? If so, the comparison ends there. In no respect does the world resemble a village community. Those who support the one-world movement no doubt share a great ideal but are, in fact, flying in the face of history, of present facts, and of any likelihood in the near future. Modern travel merely underlines the differences between races and nations. Rather than broaden the mind, travel confirms national prejudices. It may well lead to a greater international understanding, but to understand does not mean to agree, or to forgive. Modern travel may allow great athletes to meet every four years in friendship to discover the medal winners, but it would be naive to suppose that the Olympic Spirit had anything to do with the reality of international affairs or could possibly have any effect on them.

Of course modern transport cannot be blamed for the state of today's world. Like atomic energy, it is neutral, and the blessing or the curse results from the way in which it is used.

First, the benefits. Before the invention of the electric telegraph, news of a natural disaster in, say, an eastern country could only reach the west by steamship, so that by the time help reached a stricken area, it was too late to be of much use. Today, information by satellite, both in reports and pictures, is instantaneous. Response time is correspondingly quick. Modern transport planes can carry food, water and medical supplies to where they are needed in a matter of hours.

So the modern jet aircraft can help enormously in relief work. It has also proved of great benefit both to the business world and to tourism. Within certain weight-limits, it can be used for overseas trade worldwide, and the vast extension of available markets is largely due to the modern aircraft. And where business has to be done in person there are no real delays.

The aircraft has extended foreign travel, once the prerogative of the rich, to those of average income levels in most countries, and tourism has become a major world industry. The aircraft and the helicopter both have important search and rescue roles. Ships in distress can be readily located and given help. The helicopter has several roles, apart from its use by the police for searches and traffic control. Many lives have been saved in mountainous areas and at sea by speedy removal to hospital, by immediate attention by paramedics; a jet plane can carry a suitable human organ half across the world when a transplant is urgently needed.

Modernized and high-speed rail systems are likely to prove of benefit to many countries from the travel and trade points of view. To take Europe as an example. Tariff barriers in the EEC have now come down, and Europe, including Britain, has become a free-market area. In 1994, England will be linked to Europe by a channel tunnel, and Paris or Brussels will be reached as quickly as by air. Already, goods to and from Europe, and indeed worldwide, are transported in standardized containers, which are picked up and moved rapidly in heavy lorries to their destinations along new networks of motorways. The motorways also greatly ease long-distance car travel. At sea, modern oil tankers carry their vast burdens worldwide.

Yet as with any other advance, all is not sweetness and light. In the case of the jet aircraft, one needs only to mention the spy-plane, the bomber, the fighter, the assault helicopter, all of them potent war weapons, and a curse to millions of helpless people worldwide. The potential for nuclear, nerve gas, chemical and HE bombing is a curse which hangs over all our heads. The need for ever larger airfields means the destruction of tracts of countryside. Noise and oil-pollution make life a burden to those living nearby. In some countries, over-concentration on high-speed and inter-city trains has led to the severe neglect of existing networks and ordinary passenger rolling stock. In smaller countries such as England, there are now far too many cars and traffic jams in the large urban areas, providing an almost unsolveable problem. Ease of travel allows football hooligans and other undesirables to cause trouble overseas. Every improvement in transport facilities helps the criminal as well as the bona-fide traveler, particularly where immigration controls are relaxed. Immigration itself becomes an increasing problem. And at sea? All is well with the oil-tanker until it runs aground in a storm and deposits thousands of tons of oil along the shore-line.

So there is a case to be made of the more leisurely times, to some, the good old days . Modern transport has reduced the world if not to a village, at least relatively to village size. Whether the village will ever become a happy community is another matter.

E59:Science can never provide a final answer or things, it is only a way of studying them. Do you agree?

Source: www.englishdaily626.com
It is somewhat rash to assume that the only role of science is to answer the question 'How?'. That was true in the days of Newton, when an educated person could have a grasp in outline of all human knowledge. Science then filled some of the gaps left by the deliberations of the philosopher and the theologian. Since then, it has far outstripped the contributions of both. Philosophy has degenerated into historical study, and has no modern contribution to make. Theology has made no advance since the Middle Ages. The mantle of seeking answers to man's most fundamental questions has fallen on science. Whether these questions will ever be answered is an entirely different matter, but there is no other way ahead. So the topic-statement is fundamentally wrong.

By science, of course, is meant physics, which is fundamental to all studies - chemistry, biology, astronomy, indeed all macro and micro investigation. Physics has identified the laws which keep the universe in a state of equilibrium, and today seeks a unified theory to account for the space-time continuum necessary to the existence of that equilibrium, and the various other dimensions beyond the four known which are postulated. So science moves towards the first philosophical question, Is there a unified theory, or are events ultimately random? The answer to this question, if ever found, leads to the far more fundamental question, To what extent, if any, is God (the Creator) limited by his own creation? The determinism of Laplace is now seen to be totally beside the point, and belongs to a mechanistic view of the universe which can no longer be sustained. Today, science is moving rapidly towards a chaos theory which takes into account God's freedom of action plus the predictable results of laws already known to us, and also unpredictable events.

It is interesting that whereas the old scientific determinism either limited to the Creator's function or precluded the necessity of a Creator, or saw the Creator as totally detached from his creation, science today is begin forced into a belief in God. It also moves towards an acceptance that the scientifically unknown area, the God - mankind personal relationship, is not only feasible, but likely. So science has become much more than a way of studying things. Whether science can get beyond this point is a matter of conjecture. At a shrewd guess, science may well establish the possibility of eternal life , without being able to advance any more proof than could the old-time theologian. World religions have always said that such a belief depends on revelation and personal faith, and it may well be the Creator's intention to keep it that way. Faith, at least, would be greatly devalued if it could ever become the subject of scientific proof, whatever that may be.

Another answer, again stemming from the chaos theory, is to the co-existence of good and evil. If there is a Creator, it follows that evil, at least as understood by humanity, must have been allowed to enter the world-scene at some point, but deliberately. Redemption from its consequences is another result, and history is the record of the struggle between the two forces. This, says science, although leading to apparently random results, such as the little child stepping under the bus, or a death from cancer, is not random at all. All the same, it may stem from 'chaos', if this is seen in conjunction with a belief in the indestructibility of the human personality. So, say the faithful, 'God not only creates, He cares', and science today is not disposed to reject this possibility, the two approaches may converge on the same point. The processes of the universe are incredibly diverse and complicated, so why should the possibility of life after death be ruled out?

Such a belief is an essential corollary to any concept of justice in the Creator's character. This is not justice merely in the sense of retribution. The early Jews believed the Creator got so fed up with humanity that He destroyed them in the Flood, but made a fresh start with Noah's family and the paired livestock! Divine Justice is part of the concept of Divine Love, which postulated creation, with mankind as it's highest sentient form, as an expression of that love.

So the great world religions have this at least in common with modern science; there is a benevolent Creator who offers post-earthly life in some other dimension in exchange for the human response of kindness and observance of a revealed moral law. Justice, therefore, moves into an eternal setting.

A religious scientist will find no essential disharmony between his or her faith and the scientific outlook. The great questions of life have satisfying, if unprovable answers. Some of the inadequacies of religion, such as early church doctrines of the cosmos, and strictly Bible-based theories of the origin of species, have been corrected by scientific investigation without detriment to the central core of belief.

Where science, or more precisely the scientist, inevitably falls short is in the application of an essentially simple moral code to the complex issues raised by scientific advance. Genetic manipulation is a case in point. The whole question of in-vitro fertilization is highly controversial.

All that is on the local scale. On the grand scale the Creator may, or may not allow the discovery of a unified theory of the universe which will provide answers to supplement, rather than displace the answers already provided by the higher religions.

E58:Can telling lies ever be justified?

The old admonition to children, 'speak the truth and shame the devil', runs contrary to what is called the schoolboy's eleventh commandment; 'tell a lie, and stick to it'. The one adage advocates honesty at whatever personal cost. When charged with some illicit tree-felling, the young George Washington is said to have said 'I cannot tell a lie'. Those who advocate moral rectitude always argue that honesty is the best policy. Those who do not say 'get away with wrong-doing if you can'. Thus, as a child you avoid punishment. As an adult, you hope to avoid the consequences of your actions. The one is the result of a strong sense of morality. The other stems from self-interest and indifference to the fate of other people. Silence itself may amount to a lie, particularly when it is meant to shift blame from oneself. Cicero said it is the nature of a scoundrel to deceive by lying , and it may well be argued that truth is an integral factor in the health of society. Justice itself depends on witnesses pledging themselves to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . The law has severe penalties for those who perjure themselves after taking this oath.

So logically there should be no circumstances in which lying can ever be justified. Yet, we can all think of occasions when to tell the truth would be a very mixed blessing.

This applies especially to those who have access to secrets of national importance, particularly in wartime, or when there is danger of war. In these circumstances another moral issue is raised, and that is where personal loyalty lies. Most would say to one's own country. For others, a strong political belief, based on conviction, is more cogent. So, during the 'Cold War' between NATO and the Communist bloc, people on both sides were prepared to betray their country's secrets. This was generally out of conviction rather than for money, though the spy was usually rewarded in some way, sometimes by asylum and the conferring of honors and position. Such men and women would argue, and some still do, that the ultimate end justifies the means, if the means included lying and deception, so be it.

The same principle applied particularly in the 1939 - 45 war. The allies relied heavily on agents, and the lies which were part of their stock-in-trade. Disinformation was born and played a prominent role on both sides. Some of the deception was very elaborate indeed. Hitler's forces in France were tricked into believing that the invasion would be at the Pas de Calais rather than along the Normandy coast. England created a wholly fictitious army in the wrong place by setting up a subtle system of signaling, designed to be picked up across the channel. German doubts were settled by the planting of spurious invasion plans by agents in France. As a result, the invasion was given a good start. Every patriotic Englishman would say that all the lies and deception were amply justified both by the motivation and in the event. In much the same way, the British Ministry of Information concealed some failures and exaggerated some successes for the sake of morale. It was morale which enabled Britain to counter what seemed to be inevitable defeat.

So, the good of others seems to go a long way towards justifying the lie, and this applies in some personal as well as national concerns. Nobody would applaud the man or woman who lied about extra-marital relations. The more honorable course is not to have any. Yet, it is not always kind to tell the brutal truth about a severe illness such as a cancer to a patient or to his or her relations just as soon as the illness is diagnosed. Treatment may be successful, so unnecessary sadness has been caused. Yet if not, there must come a time when the facts are disclosed. Not to do so prevents the patient from making testatory provisions. It also increases the shock to the family and friends when death actually occurs.

Kindness may be a good reason, if not to tell a lie, at least to be economical with the truth . Another is tact. These two virtues oil the wheels of all social relationships. A lady may have chosen a hat which she obviously loves dearly, but you think it is hideous. Never tell her, even if you cannot bring yourself to say 'Wonderful! Super!' There are ways of side-stepping the issue. Anyway, dress is a matter of opinion rather than of fact, and what does it matter? No good at all could be done by telling the truth , and absolutely no harm done by withholding it.

Source: www.englishdaily626.com