似水年华 千面威尼斯

在威尼斯,首先撞见的是雨天,灰蒙蒙的看不清远处的景致。这是我第一次到威尼斯,但却分明带有一种感伤、怀旧的色彩。     

萧山花边的似水年华

1919年农历八月初六,一个平常得再不能平常的日子,上海商人徐方卿带着4位意大利传教士到了浙江萧山.本来,这4个人的中国之旅是想给古老的意大利手艺——威尼斯花边在中国上海寻找一方生存的土壤,然而,徐方卿却把他们带到了钱塘江畔的萧山——也许,这与徐方卿作为一个精明的商人有着千丝万缕的关系.彼时的上海,正是新式工厂如火如荼地发展之时,而花边无须大量的机器,缘何要挤着去抢这碗粥呢?况且,这是一个需要依靠大量劳动力尤其是女工的行当,恰好,坎山镇一带历来以桑蚕、织布为业,家家户户的女子都在岁月之河里练就了一双灵巧的手,就这样,他们一行5人来到了萧山坎山.     

周恩来侄女在中南海的似水年华

"超,西子湖边飞来红叶,竟未能迅速回报,有负你的雅意,懒罪该打……"在周秉德的眼中,伯父周恩来是个浪漫的人。作为伯父最亲近的晚辈,12岁便走进中南海的她,在周恩来夫妇身边生活了15年,见证了一代伟人的坚韧与平凡。     

浅析《追忆似水年华》中的叙述者身份

《追忆似水年华》是马塞尔·普鲁斯特的自传还是渗透着作者个人阅历的个人小说?多次出现的名字"马塞尔"真的是小说里面"我"的名字吗?法国作家普鲁斯特的著名长篇巨著《追忆似水年华》凭借对心灵追索的细致和卓越的意识流技巧而风靡世界,同时奠定了它在当代世界文学中的地位,被誉为二十世纪最重要的文学作品之一。撇开可与巴尔扎克的《人间喜剧》相媲美的社会图景描绘不说,更为人津津乐道的是全书以第一人称进行     

推荐地之三:乌镇——追忆似水年华

水乡乌镇是江南四大名镇之一,素有“鱼米之乡,丝绸之府”之称。推荐理由一：“以和为美”的水乡乌镇具有典型江南水乡特征,完整地保存着原有晚清和民国时期水乡古镇的风貌和格局。以河成街,街桥相连,依河筑屋,水镇一体,组织起水阁、桥梁、石板巷、茅盾故居等独具江南韵味的建筑因素,“以和为美”。     

年华似水 岁月如歌——简评《河南考古探索》

河南地处中原 ,扼东西南北交通之要冲。境内群山起伏 ,大河纵横 ,平原辽阔 ,深得天时地利之便。河南历史悠久 ,我们的祖先很早就劳动、生息、繁衍在这方神奇的热土上。日月交替 ,沧桑更迭 ,物华天宝 ,人杰地灵 ,孕育了中华民族灿烂的古代文化。由于战争的频仍 ,王朝的兴衰 ,人民的迁徙 ,河南又成为各民族交融汇合的熔炉。漫长的历史岁月过去了 ,留下了丰富的遗迹和遗物 ,在中国古代文明中占有无可替代的历史地位。旧石器时代文化 ,南来北往 ,东播西传 ,都需经过河南沃野 ;新石器时代文化 ,河南名列前矛 ,成为中国古代文明的重要源头 ;夏商周…     

GEOGRAPHY'S SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF ERNST CASSIRER

O ne of the distinctive features of geographic research is the spatial perspective which is manifested in the geographic literature through the use of a wide variety of spatial concepts. Until the recent work of phenomenological geographers, the variety of concepts used by geographers conformed to the ideals of a scientific geography in that they referred to measurable relations between phenomena. The relations may be directly measurable, such as the highway distance between Los Angeles and San Diego, or they may be indirectly measurable, such as an individual's perception of the distance between the same two cities. This interest in both objective as well as perceived spatial relationships illustrates the expanded scope of geography's spatial perspective, which has resulted in an increase in the number of spatial concepts of significance to geographers and a proliferation of the meanings given to the traditional spatial concepts of geography.     

THE CRITICAL THEORY OF HISTORY: RETHINKING THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY IN THE LIGHT OF KOSELLECK'S WORK

There are many ways to consider the philosophy of history. In this article, I claim that one of the most viable approaches to the philosophy of history today is that of critical theory of history, inspired by Reinhart Koselleck. Critical theory of history is based on what I call known history, history as it has been established and expounded by historians. What it contributes—its added value, so to speak—is a reflection on the categories employed to think about historical experience at its different levels, not only as a narrative but also as a series of events: their origins, contexts, terminology, functions (theoretical or practical), and, finally, eventual relevance.     

生命哲学视野下旅游研究与实践方向的探索

近年来,旅游业已然成为中国国民经济的战略性支柱产业,但以经济发展为主要目标的旅游研究却呈现出固化和乏味的态势。未来旅游研究应科学与哲学齐头并进,与生命哲学的结合,更是旅游研究顺应时代发展的应有之义。文章以生命哲学研究的主要内容梳理为切入点,探索旅游生命观的形成,以生命哲学视野下的旅游概念与本质为整个研究体系的逻辑起点,分析生命哲学视域下旅游发展的内在机理,从矛盾论、价值论的视角逐步探讨未来旅游的研究与实践方向。结合当今时代特征,发现生命哲学下的旅游本质应是体察风景、体验生活与体悟生命的统合。人与自然共同构建生命共同体,科学旅游发展观应转向“以生命为本”,未来旅游的最终目的是促进人的生命自由和全面发展,实现人与自然的生命延续。     

NE ME RACONTE PLUS D'HISTOIRES: DERRIDA AND THE PROBLEM OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

This essay reads Derrida's early work within the context of the history of philosophy as an academic field in France. Derrida was charged with instruction in the history of philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure, and much of his own training focused on this aspect of philosophical study. The influence of French history of philosophy can be seen in Derrida's work before Of Grammatology, especially in his unpublished lectures for a 1964 course entitled “History and Truth,” in which he analyzed the semantic richness of the word “history.” According to Derrida, “history” comprised both the ideas of change and of transmission, which allowed the writing of history at a later time. In the Western tradition, Derrida suggested, philosophers had consistently tried to reduce the idea of history as transmission, casting it simply as empirical development in order to preserve the idea that truth could be timeless. Derrida's account of the evolving opposition between history and truth within the history of philosophy led him to suggest a “history of truth” that transcended and structured the opposition. I argue that Derrida's strategies in these early lectures are critical for understanding his later and more famous deconstruction of speech and writing. Moreover, the impact of this early confrontation with the problem of history and truth helps explain the ambivalent response by historians to Derrida's analyses.     

PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY'S RETURN

Kojin Karatani's Structure of World History seeks to rescue the philosophy of history and restore to it the relationship between philosophical reflection and historical practice. This connection is particularly pertinent in Karatani's case since he had earlier worked out the philosophical scaffolding of this monumental study in his book Transcritique: On Kant and Marx, which embarked on a “return to Capital once more to read the potential that has been overlooked.” By juxtaposing Marx to Kant and vice versa to discover the importance of exchange over production, he found what was to become the informing principle of his later philosophy of history. While Karatani's accounting of the structure of world history presumes to recount the passage of the world's history from nomadic societies to the present as a condition to rethink “social formations” from a perspective that recalls the form of a stagist philosophy of history attributed to Marx and Engels, he has abandoned its informing principle of the modes of production. Instead, he offers the perspective of modes of exchange, which means waiving any consideration concerning who owns the means of production: the putative “economic base” underlying superstructural representations like the state, religion, and culture upheld by a vulgate tradition of Marxian historical writing and discounted by bourgeois historiography as deterministic. The decision to shift to modes of exchange means rooting the primary mode of exchange taking place first in nomadic societies, rather than forms of production and archaic communal ownership of land. Although his revised scheme still accords priority to the economic, the putative division between base and superstructures still persists, even though the latter are still produced by the former, which is now the mode of exchange. Whereas Marx privileged commodity exchange as dominant, Karatani places greater emphasis on the earliest mode of exchange, which consists of the “pure gift,” associated with early nomadic social formations and reciprocity practices by clans, and seems to offer nomadic/clan communalism as a model that resembles Marx's own strategic linking of the surviving Russian commune and contemporary capitalism. The point to this project is to transcend the hegemonic trinity of capital, nation, and state and satisfy a desire to share with other globalists a vision that aims to overcome the defects of capitalism and the nation‐state and the failure of a Marxian expectation that nation‐states will simply wither away with the final surpassing of capitalism. To this end, Karatani's appeal to Kant offers to inject a moral element absent in the merely economic structure of history that will thus provide the promise of “world peace,” which ultimately requires an abolition of the nation‐state as a condition for realizing a “simultaneous bourgeois revolution” that would finally overcome state and capital and establish a world federation.     

SCHOPENHAUER'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Contained mostly within one brief chapter of his The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer's philosophy of history has long been considered either hostile or irrelevant to nineteenth‐century philosophy of history. This article argues that, on the contrary, Schopenhauer maintained what would become a widely accepted criticism of the methodological identity of historiography and the natural sciences. His criticism of Hegel's teleological historiography was more philosophically rigorous than is commonly acknowledged. And his proposal of a “genuine” historiography along the model of art became a major influence on the historiography of Burckhardt, Emerson, and Nietzsche. This article accordingly aims to restore Schopenhauer to the conversation of nineteenth‐century philosophy of history.