शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Ethics of Care Lecture - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।

345 वाक्य

यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।

So today we discuss the ethic of care

and as the name suggests the ethics of care begins with the idea

that to be good or to live a good life means to care.

We are caring beings.

And that is how the theory understands human nature.

We are feeling beings, okay, and relational beings.

Our feelings are always related to others.

The ethic of care is really a 20th century development.

and it is largely a response to the perceived historical neglect of the feminine perspective in ethics.

Now the reasoning here, which I think is sound, is that really until the 20th century,

Not only minority groups,

but also women did not have the same platform to articulate their thinking about ethical issues or metaphysical issues.

And so the result, according to these theorists, is

that a very important aspect of what it means to be

a good person has been overlooked by the subsequent history of ethical philosophy.

The feminine perspective in ethics.

And so we begin with this idea that men

and women think fundamentally differently about what it means to live a good life.

Now what do you think about that?

Do you think men and women think differently

when it comes to what it means to be good or what I ought to do?

Okay.

And I would agree with that.

And for whatever reason, one,

I think, very sound possible explanation is that traditionally men have been hunters, right?

And women have been caretakers.

Okay?

Now this has changed dramatically in the 20th

and 21st century where typically you know both spouses will have jobs

and you know you have house husbands

and mr. moms okay taking care of the children when the woman has a career okay so to some extent,

things have changed.

Well, yeah, because men more or less think to problem solve, as opposed to women who think like you said.

Okay, and think about why that might be.

If men are more competitive and women more sensitive or empathetic,

compassionate, this could be the result of any number of reasons.

For one thing, since men have traditionally been breadwinners and women caretakers,

think about the different strategies that each role demands.

If I'm a businessman or a hunter and I've got competition,

I cannot afford to feel compassion for my competition.

If I'm a businessman, if I work for Apple and I see that the Microsoft stock has plummeted,

I can't really afford to feel bad for them and say, you know what?

We were about to release the iPhone 6, but we're going to put it off for a little while to let you guys catch up.

That's not the way things work in the business world.

Furthermore, as a good businessman, you need to be impartial.

You should treat all of your business associates the same way.

But in the home, things are completely different.

Obviously, a mother not only will be partial to her own children,

as opposed to the children of strangers,

but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that it's right that she does that.

She brought these particular children into the world.

They have come to depend upon her.

She has presented herself as their caretaker,

and so she does have a special obligation to her own children that she does not have to other children.

So the ethics of care,

like utilitarianism, also has a major break with traditional ethical thinking.

Every theory that we have looked at so far, whether it's virtue ethics, natural law ethics,

contract ethics, or utilitarianism, has insisted on some principle of equality or impartiality.

I should be impartial when making moral decisions.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about my well-being or your well-being.

I need to do the right thing, not just what's going to make me feel good.

As Socrates said, when a person is considering what to do,

he or she ought never calculate the chances of living or dying.

but only whether or not what he or she is doing is right.

Okay?

The ethic of care emphasizes partiality as a basic moral principle.

I have a moral obligation to be partial,

to show favoritism to those beings for whom I am responsible,

or to whom I have become the caretaker.

Okay?

So, for the ethic of care, living a good life means caring for others.

And according to Melnades, the moral relationship

that exists between two parties is always between what she calls

the one caring and the one cared for.

Okay?

So, I am the one caring for my children.

My children are the ones being cared for.

Now how does this relationship ensue?

Where does my obligation to care for another being originate?

it simply originates on the basis of my having established a relationship.

Okay?

Okay.

Did you say maternal?

Absolutely, certainly, okay?

Obviously, for the most part,

mothers have a maternal instinct that makes them partial to protecting their own children.

And so according to the ethic of care,

moral obligations, what I ought to do,

does not arise from rationality

or even feelings like what I feel like doing at any particular moment

or from God or from the natural purposes of things okay like natural law ethics tells us

or virtue although care ethics is an aspect of virtue theory

because one virtue is loyalty okay and think about this we would all agree that loyalty is a virtue

but loyalty by its very nature is partial it's a contradiction to say that i am loyal universally

Loyalty always takes a specific person.

I am loyal to this person, this child, this animal.

And like utilitarianism, the ethic of care also takes animals into consideration.

Because moral obligations arise from personal relationships.

100

When I have presented myself as a caretaker,

101

I have created for myself a moral obligation to care for the other.

102

But the one cared for also has a moral obligation.

103

And that is simply to acknowledge their caretaker.

104

I do not think this means fawning gratitude.

105

Okay?

106

But it simply means, for example,

107

that I explicitly recognize that my parents take care of me.

108

Okay?

109

And if you think about it practically, if you have spent time and energy

110

and sacrificed even your own interests in the care of another,

111

and that person is completely ungrateful, right?

112

Treats you with disrespect.

113

Acts as though they never asked you to care for them.

114

You know, that was your choice.

115

I don't owe you anything, okay?

116

That would be an affront.

117

It would be wrong.

118

And so the relationship between the one caring

119

and the one cared for is

120

that the one caring has a moral obligation to respond to the perceived needs of the other.

121

So if I see that my child needs food or clothing or education and I respond to that need,

122

not because it makes me feel good, not because I don't want to go to jail, not because I have some legal obligation to do so,

123

but simply because I recognize that the person

124

or animal for whom I have taken on the role of caretaker is in need,

125

I have a moral obligation to satisfy that need.

126

So if we ask the practical question of ethics,

127

namely what makes an action right or wrong?

128

An action is right when it is a genuine response to the perceived needs of another.

129

So imagine something like this.

130

Imagine that there are many stray cats in your neighborhood, and there are tons of them in my neighborhood, okay?

131

But I start putting food out for one of them, and the cat comes back the next day looking for food,

132

and I feed it, and the next day, and the next day.

133

I have then presented myself as caretaker, and this animal has come to depend upon me.

134

And even though it can't say thank you, when it comes up to my front door and scratches and meows at me,

135

that is acknowledging that I am its caretaker. and

136

so I have created for myself a moral obligation to care for this being and when we

137

think about what it means to be,

138

let's say, a good parent or a good steward of the earth.

139

We do not think about it simply in terms of having a duty or a legal obligation.

140

because part of being a good parent is not just putting food on the table.

141

If I'm feeding my children and I'm shoveling out macaroni and cheese on their plates and I'm saying,

142

you darn kids, if I hadn't studied ethics, you'd be awful hungry.

143

Well, you are failing in your obligation

144

Because part of caring for a child is letting them know that they are special,

145

that they mean something to you more than the anonymous child does. or imagine this

146

imagine that you have put away a college fund for your child

147

and you've been accumulating this money since they were born

148

but as they grow up you realize your child is an average student

149

and not particularly interested in pursuing further education after high school but your next door neighbor's kid

150

who you don't have any particularly close relationship with is brilliant and could possibly make a tremendous contribution to the world.

151

Let's even say that I believe that this child could potentially develop a cure for cancer.

152

Okay?

153

Well, do I take my own child's college fund and give it to my next door neighbor just because,

154

let's say, on the utilitarian basis,

155

this is going to bring about more happiness for the whole? Of course not. Of course not.

156

I have an obligation to my child because I have created

157

that moral obligation on the basis of the relationship between my child and myself.

158

Okay?

159

Okay.

160

Now, of course, this entire theory is premised on the idea that men and women really do think differently about ethics.

161

And there could be many causes for this.

162

The one we've already considered is the difference in traditional gender roles.

163

If men have traditionally been breadwinners and out there in the work world,

164

then success means being impartial,

165

not allowing your emotions or compassion to influence your decisions.

166

I mean, if you have an employee who is failing his responsibilities

167

or even stealing from you just because it might happen to be a friend of yours,

168

you have a moral obligation to fire that employee.

169

Okay?

170

Because you have an obligation to the business.

171

But as a homemaker, right?

172

If I'm a father or a mother taking care of children on a daily basis,

173

then I have a moral obligation to be partial,

174

to be empathetic, compassionate, patient with my child in a way that I am not obligated to the anonymous child or animal.

175

Okay?

176

Another possible reason why men and women think differently about ethics,

177

if indeed they do, could be something biological.

178

I think we know that women have a biological imperative to protect their children.

179

If you've ever watched anything on National Geographic or the Discovery Channel

180

and witnessed the ferocity of a mother lioness protecting her cubs,

181

she will put her own life in danger.

182

she will confront a marauding male lion, which is almost certain death, to protect her cubs.

183

So perhaps there is a biological imperative there.

184

But whatever the origin of this difference between male and female perspectives and ethics might be,

185

really is not relevant.

186

The point is that, according to thinkers like Gilligan-Noddings and Held,

187

part of being a good person means caring for others.

188

And we care, especially for the people with whom we have personal relationships.

189

And those relationships create real moral obligations.

190

So I do not have a natural moral obligation to a stranger.

191

Perhaps, and I think this is the case,

192

the ethic of care can make room for degrees of care.

193

Obviously, the level of care that I am going to exercise for my children is going to exceed

194

the level of care I exercise for my next door neighbor's children.

195

I still know those children and they know that I'm an adult

196

that they can run to if they're in trouble and

197

so I do have an obligation to those kids

198

but it is not as stringent as the one I bear to my own children.

199

And even if we remove this

200

relationship yet another level let's say to mankind in general okay

201

I don't know everyone on the earth okay

202

but I do as a human being have some sort of

203

relationship to humanity okay

204

I have some sort of obligation to future generations even though

205

they're not even born yet I should be a good steward of the earth

206

I should I shouldn't destroy the earth just

207

because I don't have a personal relationship with the future generations

208

that will inherit the okay so I don't want you to be under the impression

209

that the ethics of care is selfish

210

that I am only concerned with the people that I love

211

and that I have presented myself as caretaker for there can be degrees of care

212

but the main issue here is

213

that for the first time we see a theory

214

which gives priority to being partial the

215

principle of equality does not apply here there are degrees of intensity of relationships

216

and the more the deeper a relationship I have with another person

217

or animal the more stringent my moral obligation becomes to

218

that person and again the obligation on the part of the one cared for is to acknowledge being cared for

219

There was, and I believe he was a theoretical psychologist named Lawrence Kohlberg, okay?

220

And he conducted an experiment whereby he took two young children,

221

I think they were 12 years old, a boy and a girl, and he presented them with this scenario

222

and the scenario is called Heinz's dilemma like the ketchup Heinz okay

223

and he said imagine this that mr. Heinz is married

224

and his wife is suffering from a fatal illness

225

which is nevertheless curable

226

but the cure is exorbitantly expensive prohibitively expensive okay perhaps

227

it costs two dollars for the pharmaceutical company to produce

228

but by the time it hits the shelf at the pharmacy it costs two hundred dollars a day okay

229

so mr. Hines cannot afford to buy this remedy to save his wife

230

so the question becomes should he steal it okay now obviously

231

if you think back through the beer the various moral traditions

232

we've discussed we may get different answers a different answer from the utilitarian

233

and we get in the virtue ethic or the natural law ethic.

234

But when the boy was asked what he ought to do,

235

the boy immediately said, oh no, he can't steal it.

236

Stealing is wrong.

237

Period.

238

I feel bad for his wife

239

but it's not the pharmacist's problem the pharmacist has a right to make his living

240

and so the boy saw things in very cut and dry terms

241

and made reference to principle the principle that stealing is wrong period

242

But when Kohlberg asked the young girl,

243

she said, well, stealing is wrong, of course.

244

But Heinz's wife should not have to die just because he doesn't have the money to afford the treatment.

245

So in a sense, maybe he should steal it.

246

But at the same time, she was able to see things from the pharmacist's point of view as well.

247

And said the pharmacist too has rights.

248

Okay?

249

And so she was more multi-perspectival than the boy was.

250

she was able to see things from both sides

251

and was compassionate for both parties okay

252

now Colbert suggests

253

that we go through stages of moral development when we are first born

254

all we really possess is a suckling reflex and bodily functions okay

255

and when you're hungry or uncomfortable you cry you don't choose to cry you just cry

256

and your caretaker your mother or your father comes

257

and takes care of you will feed you will change your diaper whatever

258

but then as you grow a little bit

259

you realize hey wait a minute this crying thing is really powerful in fact I can cry even

260

if I'm not hungry and my mom's gonna come

261

and take care of me okay and so they're very egocentric okay the infant mentality is is all about itself.

262

But then as this child grows a little bit and goes to school, he or she very quickly realizes that the teacher

263

and the other children are not going to treat him or her the way that mommy is going to treat them.

264

If I want another kid's Twinkies, I've got to bring something to the table I've got to say okay I'll trade you my peanut butter

265

and jelly sandwich for your Twinkies okay and

266

so the child begins to think not just in terms of ego and self-satisfaction but widens the perspective a bit

267

and learns a new role.

268

My role is no longer simply the child of these parents.

269

But now I am also a member of this classroom.

270

And we grow a little bit more.

271

And my consciousness expands further.

272

And I may come to recognize that not only do I have a role in my family

273

and in a classroom but I have a role as a boy

274

or girl I have a role perhaps as belonging to a sports team

275

and as we get older we may come to understand ourselves as members of a community

276

and have obligations that arise there from

277

with a bit more development perhaps we begin to develop more of a nationalistic consciousness

278

and eventually maybe a global consciousness and ultimately perhaps even a universal consciousness

279

that moral principles ought to be universal in scope.

280

Now, Colbert argues

281

that these stages of moral development from the strictly egocentric to the universal

282

are parallel with the stages of moral enlightenment.

283

And so the more universal,

284

principle-oriented, impartial my moral thinking is,

285

the more morally enlightened I have become.

286

But Carol Gilligan argues that just

287

because we may happen to pass through these stages of so-called development

288

does not necessarily mean that a global consciousness morally outranks a partial egocentric consciousness.

289

Okay?

290

And that my obligations to those with whom I have personal relationships

291

are perhaps more incumbent upon me than any obligation I could possibly have to a stranger or to the world at large.

292

So really the ethics of care is a repudiation of the idea that ethics ought to be universal and impartial.

293

And rather, it should be partial and personal.

294

Okay?

295

Now, whether or not the ethic of care can stand on its own as a complete moral theory is highly questionable.

296

Because after all, we do have a common sense notion that even when it comes to dealing with strangers,

297

there are certain behaviors which are right and wrong.

298

It doesn't matter if I know you or not.

299

I still shouldn't steal from you.

300

I still shouldn't treat you with disrespect.

301

It doesn't matter if I know you okay and

302

so perhaps utilitarians have something legitimate to contribute virtue ethics of

303

course has something legitimate to contribute as natural law ethics does

304

and so what we're starting to see is that perhaps no single moral tradition has a monopoly on the truth.

305

Ethics is a complicated discipline and

306

ultimately perhaps the kind of moral consciousness we develop is going to be a sort of conglomeration of bits

307

and pieces and depending on the situation within which one finds oneself,

308

perhaps a utilitarian viewpoint is more apt.

309

Whereas in a different situation, the ethic of care may be more suitable.

310

The ethics of care is an aspect of virtue ethics ethics because when we talk about loyalty patience kindness

311

industriousness these are virtues and these are the kinds of character dispositions

312

that are exhibited by a caring person okay

313

so I would certainly be comfortable saying at least this much that the ethic of care has something

314

indispensable to contribute to our ethical consciousness

315

if not the basis for a complete moral theory

316

it certainly does complement any other moral tradition okay

317

now I have just realized a moment ago

318

that I think I've taken these things out of order

319

I think perhaps we were scheduled to talk about Comte first after all Comte is the 18th century moralist

320

and the ethic of care is the 20th century moral theory

321

but it makes no difference okay we can do this in any order we want.

322

So, our next quiz will be, of course, on utilitarianism.

323

Okay?

324

And then the quiz after that perhaps will be on care ethics and something else.

325

Okay?

326

But we are now getting very close to the transitional part of the course,

327

where we leave traditional ethical traditions behind and begin to consider existentialist perspectives on ethics.

328

But before we do that, we are going to consider the ethical writing of Immanuel Kant,

329

which is perhaps top shelf.

330

It doesn't get any better.

331

As far as execution, completeness,

332

coherence, rationality, Kant is first rate.

333

Okay?

334

So your obligation right now,

335

of course, is to make sure you've taken the first five quizzes and the midterm by tonight.

336

As I've mentioned, if for some reason or another you cannot get one of these things done, that's all right.

337

I will leave them open for you to take, but you will just have to wait for me to manually get it graded

338

because the system won't grade it after the due date okay that's why

339

if you've taken a quiz late you don't get a score right away okay right

340

now you should have all your scores I think I've gotten through all the things

341

that were in grade okay so for tonight simply worry about getting your midterm done

342

and tomorrow I will introduce the deontological ethics okay

343

if you have the textbook go ahead and read the chapter on deontological ethics

344

but you know if you don't have time

345

because of the midterm no sweat you can come back to later okay all right see you tomorrow

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ

AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर

IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत

शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ

शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें

QR स्कैन करें

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

अनुशंसित वीडियो

67 वाक्य

The Neuroscience of Love and Attachment: Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and Dopamine's Role in Bonding

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

93 वाक्य

How Culture affects your Personality

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

48 वाक्य

Gift economy, commodity fetishism, and what we owe each other #capitalism #environment #philosophy

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

347 वाक्य

Doctor Explains: How to Train Your Brain to Crave Doing Hard Things

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

यह स्पीकिंग पाठ वीडियो “Ethics of Care Lecture” पर आधारित है। सबसे ज़्यादा दोहराए गए शब्द ये हैं: ethic, moral, obligation, relationship। इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 345 वाक्य और 3715 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 41:26 लंबा है। वक्ता धीरे बोलता है, लगभग 90 शब्द प्रति मिनट, इसलिए हर ध्वनि की नकल करने का समय मिलता है। केवल 80% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं, इसलिए शब्दावली कठिन है।

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो के 15 सीखने लायक शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
moral विशेषण	/ˈmoɹəl/	नैतिक
obligation संज्ञा	/ˌɑ.blɪˈɡeɪ.ʃn̩/	दायित्व
steal क्रिया	/stiːl/	चुराना
partial विशेषण	/ˈpɑɹʃəl/	आंशिक, अधूरा
consciousness संज्ञा	/ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/	चेतना, होश
principle संज्ञा	/ˈpɹɪn.sɪ.pəl/	जड़सूत्र, असूल
ethical विशेषण	/ˈɛθɪkəl/	नैतिक
loyalty संज्ञा	/ˈlɔɪəlti/	निष्ठा, वफ़ा
hungry विशेषण	/ˈhʌŋ.ɡɹi/	भूखा
aspect संज्ञा	/ˈæspɛkt/	पक्ष
acknowledge क्रिया	/əkˈnɑ.lɪd͡ʒ/	स्वीकार करना
businessman संज्ञा	/ˈbɪznəsmæn/	व्यापारी, व्यवसायी
arise क्रिया	/əˈɹaɪz/	उद्गम
quiz संज्ञा	/kwɪz/	क्विज़, प्रश्नोत्तरी
cure क्रिया	/kjɔː/	इलाज करना, उपचार करना

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
come back क्रिया		वापस आना
go ahead क्रिया	/ˌɡoʊ əˈhɛd/	आगे बढ़ना

दोहराने लायक वाक्य

वीडियो के छोटे, पूरे वाक्य जिन्हें आप रोज़ की बातचीत में इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं:

Where does my obligation to care for another being originate?
Did you say maternal?
I don't owe you anything, okay?
It doesn't matter if I know you or not.
I still shouldn't steal from you.

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	has been overlooked · have been · has changed
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	has been overlooked · being cared · were born
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	women who think · lion, which is · behaviors which are

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

वक्ता 54 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे don't, I'm, I've। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।

“th” की ध्वनियाँ: ethics /ˈɛθ.ɪks/, ethic /ˈɛθ.ɪk/, ethical /ˈɛθɪkəl/, clothing /ˈkloʊðɪŋ/, nevertheless /ˌnɛvɚðəˈlɛs/
“sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: obligation /ˌɑ.blɪˈɡeɪ.ʃn̩/, partial /ˈpɑɹʃəl/, consciousness /ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/, traditionally /tɹəˈdɪʃ.ə.nə.li/, compassionate /kəmˈpæʃənət/
लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: universal /ˌjunəˈvɜɹs(ə)l/, differently /ˈdɪf.ə.ɹənt.li/, biological /ˌbaɪ.əˈlɑ.d͡ʒɪ.kəl/, traditionally /tɹəˈdɪʃ.ə.nə.li/, compassionate /kəmˈpæʃənət/

हिंदी भाषियों के लिए मुश्किल ध्वनियाँ:

/v/ और /w/ का फ़र्क़ — /v/ में ऊपर के दाँत निचले होंठ को छूते हैं, /w/ में होंठ गोल होते हैं: virtue /ˈvɝt͡ʃu/, universal /ˌjunəˈvɜɹs(ə)l/, quiz /kwɪz/, perceive /pɚˈsiv/, equality /ɪˈkwɑ.lɪ.ti/
/z/ — इसे “ज” (/dʒ/) न बनाएँ: businessman /ˈbɪznəsmæn/, arise /əˈɹaɪz/, quiz /kwɪz/, whereas /(h)wɛɹˈæz/, exhibit /ɪɡˈzɪbɪt/
शब्द की शुरुआत में s + व्यंजन — पहले “इ” न जोड़ें: steal /stiːl/, stranger /ˈstɹeɪnd͡ʒɚ/, scope /skəʊp/, strictly /ˈstɹɪktli/, sweat /swɛt/

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
सामान्य गति पर एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें और हर वाक्य तब तक दोहराएँ जब तक आपकी लय वक्ता से न मिल जाए।
अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर moral, obligation, steal जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Ethics of Care Lecture - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

Why I’m against empathy | Paul Bloom

WORK - HRM Lecture 08

Core Knowledge (Stanford Psych 60)

4 Key Lessons from Women Who Run With The Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estés

Gen Z's Morality Crisis

The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown

The Seven Traditions: Mapping the Field of Communication Theory

Feminist vs Anti Feminist Women | PART 1

The Neuroscience of Love and Attachment: Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and Dopamine's Role in Bonding

How Culture affects your Personality

Gift economy, commodity fetishism, and what we owe each other #capitalism #environment #philosophy

Doctor Explains: How to Train Your Brain to Crave Doing Hard Things

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

दोहराने लायक वाक्य

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?