跟讀練習: Who Am I? - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。

86 句

如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。

Over a lifetime, all of us change to an extraordinary degree.

From a physical perspective, we start off as a little bundle about 50 cm high, with cherubic features and elastic soft skin.

And then we may end up, some 90 years later, as a stooped, grey, liver -spotted, 180 cm high structure.

In the intervening period, every single cell in our body will have been replaced,

often many times over, and will have gone through all kinds of experiences that perhaps leave almost no trace in memory.

The 25 -year -old won't remember most of what the 5 -year -old felt so strongly about.

The 67 -year -old will only dimly recall what was on their mind as they approached 30.

We carry the same name throughout our lives and consider ourselves as a relatively stable, unitary entity.

我們一生都使用同一個名字，並且認為自己是一個相對穩定、統一的個體。

But is it really right to think of ourselves as the same person?

Once one puts it under a philosophical microscope, the issue of personal identity emerges as far trickier than at first assumed.

So in what ways could we be said to be continuous throughout time?

What does guarantee that we can plausibly think of ourselves as the same people over a lifetime?

Just where is personal identity located?

A standard assumption is that it's our body that guarantees our personal identity.

This is the theory that a key part of what makes me me is that I'm housed in an identical body.

But philosophers like to push this assumption around a little.

Imagine if I lost all my hair, would I still be me?

Yes, sure.

What if I lost a finger?

Yes, a leg?

Definitely.

Now, what if a malevolent demon appeared and told us that we'd have to lose every part of our bodies, but could keep just one bit.

Which bit would it be?

Few of us would pick our elbow or belly button.

Almost all of us would pick our brains.

Now that tells us something interesting.

We assume implicitly that some bits of our bodies are more me -ish, closer to the core of personal identity than others.

And the most me -ish of all the bits are our brains.

Christianity runs a version of this thought experiment.

It asked us to think what will happen after our death, and it imagines a separation of the body, ultimately not that significant, and the ongoing survival of a more modest,

precious bit that it calls the soul.

There's another version of this thought experiment that two lovers can play.

In the early throes of love, two people who've gone to bed together might ask, what do you really like about me?

The wrong answer is to say your fabulous breasts or your amazing muscular arms.

Breasts and chest don't ultimately feel me -ish enough to be a respectable answer.

It seems we want to be loved for something closer to our real self, perhaps our soul or our brain.

Now let's push the thought experiment further.

What bit of the brain is actually most crucial to being me?

Let's imagine that I have a bump to the head and lose my ability to play table tennis.

Am I still myself?

Most of us would say yes, sure.

What if I once spoke Latin and lose the ability or forgot how to cook asparagus with a light mayonnaise sauce?

Would I still be me?

Yes.

In other words, technical capacities don't feel very close to the core of personal identity.

What about other kinds of memories?

A big part of making me me Tends to be my

store of memories I remember the carpet in my bedroom

when I was growing up or the girl I was in love with at university

or the weather over Sydney as we came into land for my first Australian book tour

But what if these memories all vanished as well?

Could I still be me?

One view is possibly so long as something else remained and that thing we can call my character.

In other words, if my characteristic way of responding to situations, my sense of what is funny,

wise, interesting or important remain the same, I can still in some fundamental way claim to be the same person.

My memory store of feelings and behaviors might be gone, but I could be assured of continuing to feel and behave in compatible ways in the future.

Those around me would need to keep reminding me of stuff that had happened, but they would still recognize me as me.

A fascinating idea comes into view.

Personal identity seems to consist not in bodily survival, I could be put in somebody else's body or live in a jar and still be me,

nor in the survival of memory, I could forget everything and still be me, but in the survival of what we're here going to call character.

This is an idea attributed to the English philosopher John Locke who famously wrote

that personal identity is made up of what he called sameness of consciousness.

If a demon offered us a choice between remembering everything but feeling and valuing very differently,

or feeling and valuing the same sorts of things but remembering nothing, most of us would, Locke suggests, choose the latter.

So, if we have to boil personal identity down to its essence, it seems to come down to values, inclinations and temperament.

Let's think of death with all this in mind.

The standard view of death is that it's sad because it means the end of our identity.

Now, it certainly does mean the end

if we identify identity with the survival of our bodies or with that of our memories.

But if we think that who we are is to a large degree about our values and uncharacteristic loves and hates, then we are, in a sense,

granted a kind of immortality simply through the fact that these will continue to live on in our species as a whole,

lodged here and there, outside of their present home.

Perhaps what we have learnt to call a me was only

ever a temporary resting place for a set of ideas

and proclivities that are far are far older and are destined to live on far longer than our bodies.

We might attempt to be less sad about death by letting go of the idea

that we are a particular constellation of physical features.

We are always in a sense far longer lasting, far more transgenerational as a bundle of inclinations and ideas.

We will continue to crop up and live wherever those ideas

that are most characteristic of us will emerge as they must in the generations that are to come.

Focusing in on questions of identity has the paradoxical

and rather cheering effect of making us both less attached to certain bits of us

and more confident

that the really important things about who we have been will

survive in a way long after our bodies have returned to dust and our memories have been obliterated.

Thank you.

下載應用

流利口語所需的一切

AI 發音評分逐句打分

音標練習掌握每個音

詞彙學習建立你的詞庫

詞彙遊戲邊玩邊學

掃碼

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同頻道

FOR YOU

本課的詞彙與口語要點

這段影片共有 86 個句子、1174 個單詞可供跟讀。講話部分時長為 7:16。說話人語速自然，每分鐘約 162 個詞，接近日常對話。 84% 的單詞屬於英語最常用的 3,000 詞，其餘的詞建議在練習前先學一下。

影片中的重點詞彙

影片中 15 個不太常見的單詞，附發音和釋義：

survival /sɚˈvaɪ.vəl/ (名詞) — 生存. The fact or act of surviving; continued existence or life.
experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/ (名詞) — 實驗 /實驗. A test under controlled conditions made to either demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy or likelihood of…
guarantee /ˌɡæɹ.ənˈtiː/ (名詞) — 保證 /保證. Anything that assures a certain outcome.
lifetime /ˈlaɪf.taɪm/ (名詞) — 一生, 一輩子 /一輩子. The duration of the life of someone or something.
breast /bɹɛst/ (名詞) — 奶, 乳房. Either of the two organs on the front of a female human's chest, which contain the mammary glands; also the analogous organs in males.
assumption /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/ (名詞) — 假設 /假設. The act of assuming, or taking to or upon oneself; the act of taking up or adopting.
demon /ˈdiː.mən/ (名詞) — 邪魔, 邪神. An evil being resident in or working for Hell; a devil.
characteristic /ˌkæɹ(ə)ktəˈɹɪstɪk/ (名詞) — 特性, 特質 /特質. A distinguishing feature of a person or thing, a part of mental or physical behavior.
bundle /ˈbʌn.dl̩/ (名詞) — 捆, 包. A group of objects held together by wrapping or tying.
emerge /ɪˈmɝd͡ʒ/ (動詞) — 出現 /出現. To come into view.
philosopher /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/ (名詞) — 哲學家 /哲學家. A lover of wisdom.
finger /ˈfɪŋɡɚ/ (名詞) — 手指, 指頭 /指頭. A slender jointed extremity of the human hand, (often) exclusive of the thumb, and the corresponding part, irrespective of including a thumb, in many other…
stable /ˈsteɪ.bəl/ (名詞) — 馬廄, 馬棚 /馬棚. A building, wing or dependency set apart and adapted for lodging and feeding (and training) ungulates, especially horses.
temporary /ˈtɛmp(əˌɹ)ɛɹi/ (形容詞) — 暫時 /暫時. Not permanent; existing only for a period or periods of time.
bedroom /ˈbɛdˌɹum/ (名詞) — 臥室 /臥室, 寢室 /寢室. A room in a house, apartment, hotel, or other dwelling where a bed is kept for sleeping.

影片中出現的短語動詞

end up (動詞) — 到達. To bring to a conclusion.
go through (動詞) — 通過 /通過. To travel from one end of something to the other.
grow up (動詞) — 長大 /長大. To mature and become an adult.
put in (動詞) — 投入, 插入. To place inside.

需要注意的發音

說話人用了 7 次縮略和弱讀形式，例如 don't, I'm, we'd。請按聽到的簡短形式來說。

“sh” 和 “zh” 音: assumption /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/, crucial /ˈkɹuː.ʃəl/, consciousness /ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/, separation /ˌsɛp.əˈɹeɪ.ʃən/, assure /əˈʃʊɹ/
長單詞——注意重音位置: experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/, characteristic /ˌkæɹ(ə)ktəˈɹɪstɪk/, philosopher /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/, temporary /ˈtɛmp(əˌɹ)ɛɹi/, extraordinary /ɪksˈtɹɔːrdɪn(ə)ɹi/

如何用這段影片練習

先完整聽一遍影片，不要開口，記下不認識的單詞。
先用 0.75 倍速逐句跟讀，熟練之後再回到正常速度。
錄下自己的聲音並與原聲對比，特別注意 survival, experiment, guarantee 這類單詞。

影片中的語法

說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：

結構	影片中的用法
被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的	have been replaced · be said · be loved
現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事	who've gone · have learnt · have been

什麼是跟讀法？

跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟讀法: 閱讀完整分步指南 →

跟讀練習: Who Am I? - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

下載應用

Why Unloved People Hate Themselves #shorts #selfcare

The Secret to a Calm Life

Why Socrates Hated Democracy

Why Parents Bully Their Children

LITERATURE - Charles Darwin

Daddy Issues

Don't Despair

The Point of Travel

Who Dreams of the Greatest Love? (it's not who you expect)

How to Get Over Someone

PHILOSOPHY - Plato

POLITICAL THEORY - Karl Marx

What True Love Really Is

How To Get Over Rejection

How to Parent Yourself

Why Religious Beliefs Aren't Just Silly

Are We Rejecting Them Because They’re Wrong—or Because We’re Unwell?

Why We Should Refuse to Get Into Arguments

When Love Isn't Easy

Should I Choose Passion or Duty?

What Are You?

SEtalk: Why We Hate Being Wrong

What neuroscience reveals about free will and psychopaths | Sam Harris, Roger Penrose, Sophie Scott

How To Know Yourself

Philomena Cunk being Philomena Cunk

Our Greatest Delusion

Why don't you remember being a baby?

What is time?

Beyond Differences

IFO | Bài phát biểu xứng tầm 9.0 của sinh viên trường Thanh Hoa | Full Eng-Vie sub

Cambridge Ielts 16 Reading test 2 Passage 2