tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post4778553180906219530..comments2024-03-14T23:01:01.109-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 史學家的謙虛Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-54530256740658172752012-07-25T02:11:53.284-07:002012-07-25T02:11:53.284-07:00Wong,
that's a good one. If I found myself wa...Wong, <br />that's a good one. If I found myself wanting to "know" more about a woman, I would tell my wife that I don't have to like...LOL --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-33356362078980526602012-07-22T11:11:38.044-07:002012-07-22T11:11:38.044-07:00我同意大多數歷史著作都不夠客觀,但「力求客觀」仍是一個合理的要求。我同意大多數歷史著作都不夠客觀,但「力求客觀」仍是一個合理的要求。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-86607774224664211772012-07-22T11:03:03.324-07:002012-07-22T11:03:03.324-07:00You don't have to like something to want to kn...You don't have to like something to want to know more about it. I read books about Christianity too.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-79628513509094456492012-07-22T09:49:33.869-07:002012-07-22T09:49:33.869-07:00文少,
你把「奇聞」寫成「其聞」簡直是千古奇聞!(你唔識就唔好學人亂拋書包,番去讀番好小學先,記住啦...文少,<br />你把「奇聞」寫成「其聞」簡直是千古奇聞!(你唔識就唔好學人亂拋書包,番去讀番好小學先,記住啦!)<br /><br />王Sir是出於學者的本能要求對歷史研究要做到「力求客觀」,這根本是無可厚非的事。<br /><br />你這個「五毛」卻將王Sir的意思歪曲,王Sir有說過「歷史著作原來有客觀這回事」的嗎?<br />你曲解了人家的意思不但不道歉,還「兜售」你共產黨的那一套「歷史要為階級鬥爭和無產階級政治服務」的做法,<br /><br />你簡直就是「以小人之心度君子之腹」!神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-1537051959541408762012-07-22T04:33:14.604-07:002012-07-22T04:33:14.604-07:00Wong,
Buddhism? I thought you didn't like it. ...Wong,<br />Buddhism? I thought you didn't like it. I must be mistaken, or not? --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-55317036139182232332012-07-22T00:07:06.334-07:002012-07-22T00:07:06.334-07:00我最唔明的﹐點解會有人夠膽話那些國史學家著作是客觀的
國史那套治亂史觀﹐以前24史大都是道德判詞泛濫...我最唔明的﹐點解會有人夠膽話那些國史學家著作是客觀的<br />國史那套治亂史觀﹐以前24史大都是道德判詞泛濫﹐壓根兒向儒家思想傾斜﹐純粹為統治者服務的。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-41199501015818489572012-07-21T11:20:51.973-07:002012-07-21T11:20:51.973-07:00真巧,我正在看這個:
http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/23396...真巧,我正在看這個:<br /><br /><a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/23396968.html" rel="nofollow">http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/23396968.html</a><br /><br />也下載了這個,遲些會讀:<br /><br /><a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/22645053.html" rel="nofollow">http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/22645053.html</a>W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-13284090145905150012012-07-21T09:13:27.547-07:002012-07-21T09:13:27.547-07:00我而家睇緊,這個掂,得閒睇下:
http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f...我而家睇緊,這個掂,得閒睇下:<br /><br /><a href="http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/18735287.html" rel="nofollow"> http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/18735287.html </a>Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-45484006744277097552012-07-20T02:14:03.634-07:002012-07-20T02:14:03.634-07:00簡直是千古其聞
歷史著作原來有客觀這回事的嘛﹖
除非他寫的考古學吧﹐否則﹐一直以來歷史人的所謂力求客...簡直是千古其聞<br />歷史著作原來有客觀這回事的嘛﹖<br />除非他寫的考古學吧﹐否則﹐一直以來歷史人的所謂力求客觀﹐尤其是中國的那些﹐都不過是裝出來的<br />一個人有了既定史觀後﹐每本史書其實都是在遊說﹑兜售讀者接受他那一套思維<br />只是你說的那些人﹐假扮客觀扮得好睇少少而已。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-13487480290268433412012-07-19T13:56:51.441-07:002012-07-19T13:56:51.441-07:00Wow.Wow.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-18037134334407173662012-07-19T13:55:01.052-07:002012-07-19T13:55:01.052-07:00對我來說,無分軒輊。對我來說,無分軒輊。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-68327805529408248392012-07-19T13:53:02.671-07:002012-07-19T13:53:02.671-07:00好多文學佬同哲學佬真係得把口咖咋,認叻就得!好多文學佬同哲學佬真係得把口咖咋,認叻就得!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-32392704870887499992012-07-19T11:19:02.439-07:002012-07-19T11:19:02.439-07:00余英時先生當年去美國時竟是以「無國籍」身份去美,相信余先生喜歡中國和中國文化,但卻不喜歡R.O.CH...余英時先生當年去美國時竟是以「無國籍」身份去美,相信余先生喜歡中國和中國文化,但卻不喜歡R.O.CHINA政權和P.R.CHINA政權。<br /><br />http://www.chinesepen.org/Article/hyxz/200803/Article_20080319130035.shtml神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-41663621734809933652012-07-19T08:15:09.333-07:002012-07-19T08:15:09.333-07:00吳宓寫陳寅恪:
回思真有淚如泉
戊戌重來六十年
文化神州何所繫
觀堂而後信公賢
比起其它人文學者...吳宓寫陳寅恪:<br /><br />回思真有淚如泉<br />戊戌重來六十年<br />文化神州何所繫<br />觀堂而後信公賢<br /><br />比起其它人文學者,歷史學者似乎對世事更能看得開。印象中文革時,最後能從牛棚撐過來的,有不少都是歷史學家。反而好似啲文學佬同哲學佬(?),唔少都頂唔住屈辱自殺收場的。<br /><br />你點冤,都冤不過岳飛同袁崇煥吧!<br /><br />cycAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-74269783486335593802012-07-19T06:52:21.444-07:002012-07-19T06:52:21.444-07:00教授你所講的史學家,你有所接觸的史學家,或者你個人中意的史學家,係西方那種力求客觀的歷史研究,還是中...教授你所講的史學家,你有所接觸的史學家,或者你個人中意的史學家,係西方那種力求客觀的歷史研究,還是中國那種國學式史學研究?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-42015780740150656242012-07-19T06:04:34.962-07:002012-07-19T06:04:34.962-07:00I was only joking.
Anyway, the history 飽學之士 wrote...I was only joking. <br />Anyway, the history 飽學之士 wrote were mostly 口講無憑.<br />Even though history isn't really the combination of his and story, in Middle English it meant story. The meaning of history as used today came about later. --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-81142781619820190572012-07-19T05:47:18.099-07:002012-07-19T05:47:18.099-07:00我認為 history 來自 his story 是想當然的說法。查字典,History 由拉丁文傳...我認為 history 來自 his story 是想當然的說法。查字典,History 由拉丁文傳入,源自希臘文 histor 解飽學之士。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-37116612985614635902012-07-19T03:40:37.948-07:002012-07-19T03:40:37.948-07:00//論證夠無敵就得//
Scientists won't agree. Empirical ...//論證夠無敵就得//<br />Scientists won't agree. Empirical data please. --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-82745822970757885882012-07-19T03:28:44.926-07:002012-07-19T03:28:44.926-07:00Graphically, 史 is an X crossing a 口, a mouth , tha...Graphically, 史 is an X crossing a 口, a mouth , that is 口講無憑.<br />English: history = his story. It's also 口講無憑. :)<br />--zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-89702575857258253512012-07-19T03:21:10.237-07:002012-07-19T03:21:10.237-07:00我看歷史其實難有真相, 因為我認為歷史是過去人類生活的紀錄.
盡管各代的歷史學者們的花了不少心血, ...我看歷史其實難有真相, 因為我認為歷史是過去人類生活的紀錄.<br />盡管各代的歷史學者們的花了不少心血, 他們所看到/研究到/紀錄到的, 都只有他們能接觸到的一部份而已.<br />那是否真實, 或有多少是真, 實在難百分百肯定, 除非有時光機.<br />就是在中國傳統史界頗有盛名的太史公, 所記載的也不可能百分百準確.<br /><br />所以narrative的說法應該不錯.<br />但既然是narrative, 不同人寫來就會有不同方向, 資料取舍有不同準則, 得出的narrative也有不同.<br />讀者在讀歷史著作的時候, 其實也是用自己的思考去了解, 所以難免會有偏頗.<br /><br />我看這是歷史學者們的"謙虛"的兩個原因.<br />只是我也不是看過太多, 只是猜測.蝮https://www.blogger.com/profile/15838174598652684605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-15195279085808076802012-07-18T23:48:23.906-07:002012-07-18T23:48:23.906-07:00陳寅恪的著作我只看過一篇論韓愈的文章,沒有資格評他。陳寅恪的著作我只看過一篇論韓愈的文章,沒有資格評他。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-84210450982095626792012-07-18T23:46:40.102-07:002012-07-18T23:46:40.102-07:00我不當他是史學家。雖然他讀的是歷史,但他的著作都不是力求客觀的歷史研究。我不當他是史學家。雖然他讀的是歷史,但他的著作都不是力求客觀的歷史研究。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-51767565906247459232012-07-18T23:38:31.844-07:002012-07-18T23:38:31.844-07:00先看錢穆吧,可以看我介紹過的《中國史學名著》。先看錢穆吧,可以看我介紹過的《中國史學名著》。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-64147137866542923412012-07-18T23:37:15.185-07:002012-07-18T23:37:15.185-07:00係呢。係呢。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-12058647217831411952012-07-18T23:34:59.227-07:002012-07-18T23:34:59.227-07:00//「個論證夠無敵就得」, 如果該論證無可辯駁之處, 那麼從此而得之立論豈非「自然是絕對正確」的?/...//「個論證夠無敵就得」, 如果該論證無可辯駁之處, 那麼從此而得之立論豈非「自然是絕對正確」的?//<br /><br />- 如果討論的是複雜的問題,恐怕不會有論證是無可辯駁的 --- 就算論證的邏輯完全無誤,前提大多可以爭議。此外,邏輯本身亦可以有爭議,就算是 law of non-contradiction 亦有邏輯家質疑(dialetheism)。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.com