Question

关于情人节的英文

有没有关于情人节方面的文章哦。谢谢啦

Answer 1

There are varying opinions as to the origin of Valentine's Day. Some experts state that it originated from St. Valentine, a Roman who was martyred for refusing to give up Christianity. He died on February 14, 269 A.D., the same day that had been devoted to love lotteries. Legend also says that St. Valentine left a farewell note for the jailer's daughter, who had become his friend, and signed it "From Your Valentine". Other aspects of the story say that Saint Valentine served as a priest at the temple during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Claudius then had Valentine jailed for defying him. In 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius set aside February 14 to honour St. Valentine.

Answer 2

我写过的一篇很无聊的～仅供娱乐吧。。
14th Feb again, busy as usual.
Why don’t we try something odd and eccentric about it?
Put St. Valentine as a more philosophical way:
1. Political Philosophy:
(1) Let’s start with human beings in state of nature, according to maestro Thomas Hobbes, they only and inalienable right we’ve got is self-preservation. We construct family and society only as to protect ourselves and feel secure, that we all agreed to sign up a social contract under sovereign who owns the supreme power. So, if you feel insecure and unsure, find a valentine right now, then you could make a family for defending your won and be harmonic.
Objection 1: the oddness of aim would cause instability of the relation.
Objection 2: if the only right is self-preservation, then you have the right to kill your valentine and so do him/her.
Answer to it: as long as you sign-up for the social contract, you’ve given up your right of justification and violence to the sovereign. So does your valentine.
Answer to it: Then why do we need to construct a relation?
(2) For libertarians as John Rawls, the ultimate pursue is liberty, then the more we own, the less freedom we’ll have, then why shall we have valentine?
Objection: You could get more when you’re in a relation, because you could always choose afterwards either to continue or quit. But after all, you need to be in that position then judge.
(3) For utilitarian views, we need to maximize the happiness overall. If you’re in a relation, you could increase (far more than triple) the spending; produce new babies which would havoc the problem of population and so forth.
Objection 1: We do have different ways of calculating. And the result is not so obvious to human beings for the ignorance and lack of experiences.
Objection 2: We have different utilitarianism, the so-called eudemonia calculates the quality instead of quantity where having new babies, for instance, is surely qualitative rather than qualitative.

2. Epistemology
(1) Do we actually have any knowledge about anything? From the ‘cogito ego sum’ we would only know the existence of my existence. If we couldn’t be sure about anything else how could we falling in love or even live a normal life?
Answer to it: After all we couldn’t find anything to refute skepticism; the only thing we could answer here is just ‘live a mysterious life is better than doing nothing’. Since after all, philosophical skepticism is just an attitude.
(2) Knowledge = justified true belief. The justification part we could never be certain about. So if you find someone is charming, attractive and wise, how would you justify that you are really in love or might just be right under certain environment and the dialogue. Then if you find the right environment again, would you keep the relation or try another one? And if there’s another person who is entirely the same as you valentine (e.g. a genetic twin or genetic copy of your valentine), will you still love the former person or you love both?
Objection 1: It’s not morally right to have genetic copy.
Answer to it: Morality has no effect in epistemology field.
Objection 2: Love is just a feeling at the right time; after all it is responsibility and fidelity plays the vital role.
Answer to it: Responsibility and fidelity is pivotal in keeping relation and morality, but nothing to do with the justification of love. And indeed, how could you justify the feeling. Because intuitions could be wrong and could never take it as practical reason.
Answer to it: Then why should people believe in intuition and have moral beliefs?
Answer to it: People could have intuition without any reason or put it simple, intuition is just a matter of socially construction or rational develops.
Answer to it: Rationality isn’t vital at all because it could just be reactions of the external world as what Aristotle suggested that external reason is the main part of reasoning.
Answer to it: But Hume has refuted the external reasoning. We either have priori knowledge or posterior knowledge. But he has also refuted the priori k by raising skepticism of induction (see his famous Enquiry concerning human understanding)
Answer to it: According to Kant, it’s neither external nor internal, but rather categorical comparative. (Too tired to explain and both view seem too far away from Valentine. I guess I shall stop here, for details, see Kant’s Groundwork for the metaphysics)

To be continued
Next time: normative, metaphysics and realism