杨端六与罗素——从罗素长沙讲学说起

五四时期英国哲学家罗素来华讲学,以其大哲学家的眼光,就中国问题发表看法,激起中国思想学术界颇大的反响。从英伦学成而归的杨端六,是罗素在上海、长沙讲学期间的一位重要译员。针对国人盲目追崇的学风,杨端六在报章上发表批评文章,主张应该理性地对待罗素及其他西方哲人的学说。他本人亦从罗素实用哲学中吸取精神养料,进行着社会政治实践。杨端六与罗素的思想交往,以往鲜有人讨论,但不失为这次中西文化交流中的一缕理性之光。     

Technology and Global Politics: The Modern Experiences of Bertrand Russell and John H. Herz

As questions of technology and world government are returning to the agenda of International Relations (IR), there is a risk that technology is approached in a simple, instrumentalist manner. Beginning from an overview of the overwhelmingly instrumental approaches to technology lodged in the dominant traditions of IR, the article revisits the post-war decades when scholars thought profoundly about the impact of technology on global politics. Combining the history of (international) political thought, IR theory, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) the article examines the relationship between technology and politics, authority, and liberty in the thought of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and John H. Herz (1908–2005), which leads to the unearthing of a sophisticated and complex set of ideas. Particularly during the nuclear revolution, these figures developed global visions in which the interrelations among technology, security, democracy, sustainability, and freedom were critical. Russell and Herz's approaches to technology and (global) politics are insightful and relevant for IR's attempt to re-engage with technology: by anticipating contemporary critical and reflexive approaches to technology, they can help bridge the fields of IR and STS and open new avenues for research. The Large Technical Systems (LTS) approach within STS is used to exemplify this possibility.     

Teaching Civil Liberties: The Missing Dimension

Abstract

What kind of existence do fictional beings have? What are non-existent objects? Neither logic nor cognitive science gives complete answers, but theology might help.     

试论罗素的史学审美思想

20世纪50年代,在参与史学是科学还是艺术的大讨论的过程中,英国著名哲学家罗素在史学的服务对象、学术方法和所存在的缺陷方面所提出的一应观点无疑是很有价值的。因为正是这些观点,揭蔡了史学应是审美的这样一个事实;而不能有效地使自己的读者进入审美的境界,即不能使他们通过对史学著述的阅读,来获得“直观自身的本质力量”的愉悦,是当代史学在形态建构和成果具获上的一个严重的缺失。     

Recently Discovered Lords' Lists and their Uses, 1833–42*

This note deals with previously unpublished lists which identify the party affiliations, whig, Liberal, and Conservative, of members of the house of lords from 1833 to 1842. They were prepared by the chief whips (or in one case the party leader) of their respective parties, and can thus be considered authoritative. Such information is invaluable in properly understanding the political history of the house of lords, and therefore of the nation.     

The Liberal Party,Free Trade and the 1841 Election

It is a paradox that the Liberal Party's electoral defeat in 1841 attested to its underlying strength and vitality. This article focuses on the impact on party unity of the free trade measures advocated by the ministry in the months preceding its fall. The Liberal Party's bold electoral platform antagonised its protectionist MPs, a group previously overlooked in the historiography, but fell short of the demands of its radical wing for political reform. While all the ingredients for fragmentation existed, unity prevailed. Protestations of loyalty to the leadership could be heard from the mouths of Liberal MPs of all shades, from stalwart protectionists who coalesced around the ministry on traditional foreign policy grounds through to the most fervent radicals who celebrated its ‘new’ direction. Such findings of cohesion contradict accounts which have hitherto viewed the 1841 electoral defeat as evidence of the party's inchoateness. Indeed, this article shifts the historiographical narrative away from addressing why the Liberals lost to the more pertinent issue of why the losses suffered were not greater. In answering that question, both the sensitivity with which the financial agenda was presented by ministers and the flexibility of different sections of the Liberal Party in interpreting and presenting the free trade measures to the electorate are underlined. Above all, Lord John Russell is rehabilitated as a ‘popular’ leader and his importance in the development of the nascent Liberal Party is unearthed.     

Singultus,paper-bag ventilation,and hypercapnia

ABSTRACT

Sir Louis Francis Knuthsen (1869–1957), the physician who painstakingly listed almost all treatments known for obstinate hiccough, ascribes the holding of breath method to Philip Henry Pye-Smith, FRS (1840–1914), consultant at Guy’s Hospital in London. In fact, the strategy is much older and was mentioned by greats such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Aristoteles (384–322 BC), and Eryximachus (late-fifth century bce). Hypoventilation to reduce central nervous system excitability was used in antiquity as evidenced by Cyriacus’ treatment of Artemia, the daughter of Emperor Diocletian (≈ 244–311). She was suffering from (among others) seizures that Cyriacus was apparently controlling by tightening a scarf around her neck, as depicted by Mathias Grünewald (1460–1528) on a wing of the so-called Heller Altar now on display at the Historical Museum, Frankfurt, Germany. In modern times, around 1920, inducing hypercapnia by CO₂ inhalation as therapy for hiccups was suggested and tried by a number of anesthetists, such as Americans Russel Firth Sheldon (1885–1960) and Brian Collins Sword (1889–1956) in Boston; Briton Christopher Langton Hewer (1896–1986) at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London; Austrian Karl Doppler (1887–1947) in Vienna; and the German/Polish Arthur Dzialoszynski (1893–1977) in Berlin. Although various authors assign the scientific primate to any of them, the first mention of carbon dioxide inhalation as treatment of singultus in the scientific literature is of French origin and was made by Paris pharmacist Henri Bocquillon-Limousin (1856–1917) in his 1892 Formulaire des médicaments nouveaux et des médications nouvelles.