叶赛宁_的个人资料

论高傲与孤傲 1 需依赖于低等的高等不是真正的高等因为一旦低等的被撤离则高等也土崩瓦解以此作为高等者的坚定和聪明本是高等之为高等的独有特征却因此需求助于低等与低等去比较 1.1若两者可比较说明低等与高等是同类的因为只有同种类型的东西才有可比性而这就取消了绝对意义上的高等 1.2若两者不可比较则命题是荒谬的 1.3 这样的高等我称之为高傲 2 高等的坚定性来自于使命的崇高感聪明来自于使命的亲切感这样的高等无需依赖低等 2.1 若有一天我的蛇离我而去愿我的鹰与我的愚蠢同飞 2.2 这样的高等我称之为孤傲

请问刘克峰老师还在浙大吗他还是数学系主任吗

推荐一本Quine的选集 http://tieba.baidu.com/mo/q/checkurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbook.douban.com%2Fsubject%2F3308359%2F&urlrefer=6b2aa31e10b05cb3c17986a90abd4128 不知道相吧的大神会不会感兴趣呵呵..

阅读哲学的正确方法丝状，睁开你的狗眼好好看看，你就知道你之前学的都是P了，什么，看不懂？你这条啃老狗！ Reading Philosophy At no stage in one's career is reading philosophy easy. Some people claim to read philosophy for pleasure. Wittgenstein is reported to have said that he found reading some philosophy 'a kind of agony'. Many people are inclined to agree with this. Whatever good intentions philosophers have to make their works clear, accessible, and fun to read, the result is rarely any better than more dull and dense prose with a few corny jokes. Remember that you read philosophy not for the pleasure of the moment, but for what you can come away with. It is important, then, that you make your reading of philosophy as efficient and rewarding as possible. In order to do this you must maintain a sympathetic but critical attitude to the text. This can often be best achieved by approaching the text with a number of general questions in mind. Normally you will not have got everything you could have out of the text until you can answer the following questions. A. WHAT CONCLUSION DOES THE AUTHOR WISH TO REACH? It is very rare that you will be asked to read a piece in which the author is not arguing for or against a certain thesis or conclusion. (The conclusion might even be 'no conclusion can be reached on this topic'.) Understanding what that conclusion or thesis is will be the first and most important step in understanding the reading. B. WHY IS THAT CONCLUSION INTERESTING? Of course, the conclusion may not seem very interesting to you, at least not at first. But, you hope, the conclusion should be interesting to its author. In what way? Does it contradict common sense? Or the view of some great philosopher of the past? Or some contemporary rival? Generally speaking, philosophers are writing to convince some people who hold a certain view. Who are those people and what is the view? Another way of thinking about this is to ask yourself why you think you have been set the reading, or why it appears on a reading list. What philosophical problem does it bear on, and how? What else that you know about does it connect with? C. WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT? This is often the most difficult part. A thesis, generally, is not merely asserted, but argued for. To identify the argument is to determine what premisses or assumptions are being used, and to determine what logical inferences are being made. Philosophers are often very inexplicit about this. Certain premisses will be taken for granted and so not even mentioned. Many different arguments might be used, but not properly distinguished. Identifying the argument or arguments, then, often requires great imaginative and forensic skill, but is indispensable for a real understanding of the text. D. IS THE ARGUMENT VALID IN ITS OWN TERMS? This question is really seamless with the last. If you think that you have identified the argument, but it is flagrantly invalid, then think again. Perhaps you have misunderstood something. Many readers apply a principle of hostility to philosophical texts, thinking that it is obvious that there must be a serious mistake somewhere, all one need do is identify it. A better tactic is to apply a principle of charity instead. If the argument seems flawed try to think of ways in which it can be repaired. The task here is not one of literal interpretation of the text, but of constructing the strongest line of thought available from the text. This is where some of the best, and most creative, philosophical work is to be done. Even with your best efforts, however, not all arguments can be rescued. The most common way of showing the invalidity of an argument is to find a counter-example. A counter-example to the argument is a case in which the premisses are true but the conclusion false. This shows that the argument is logically invalid, and the next task is to identify the particular logical mistake made. More often, counter-examples can be attempted to the main thesis, rather than the argument. If an author claims that all F's are G, rack your brains to see if you can think of an F that is not a G. If you can, you have found a counter-example and (if it is genuine) you have refuted the thesis. Another common defect in philosophical arguments is equivocation, where an author uses a term in more than one sense, and the argument only goes through because this ambiguity is ignored. This can be very hard (so very rewarding) to detect. In all this, remember that the philosophically mature and responsible attitude is that understanding must precede criticism. E. SHOULD THE PREMISSES OF THE ARGUMENT BE ACCEPTED? Even if the argument is valid in its own terms, you might still want to reject the conclusion, perhaps because you have found a counter-example to it, or because it conflicts with something else you believe. It might even contradict something else the author has said elsewhere. At this point your strategy is to examine the premisses or assumptions of the argument. Are they true, or are there counter-examples to one or more of these? Or perhaps there are other reasons for rejecting them. If the argument relies on false premisses, then it doesn't prove anything. F. IF WE ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION, WHAT ELSE FOLLOWS? Sometimes philosophers are explicit about the further implications of their view. Often they are not. If not, here is your own chance for real originality. G. FINALLY: A CAUTION These notes are intended to help you read philosophy. But not all you read can be approached through these questions. Sometimes philosophers present views without argument. Sometimes they present arguments apparently without views. Some philosophers think that the governing assumption of these notes, that philosophy requires arguments for conclusions, is a vulgar mistake, and real philosophy requires something else. In all such cases, following this guide to the letter will lead only to frustration. But you can still apply the spirit: approach the text in a sympathetic but critical way; try to determine why the text is thought to be philosophically interesting; try to work out how it connects with other things you know about. Don't just read: think.

求助友没有在台湾的吧友明天去高雄想逛书店问问那里有书店谢谢

丝状应加才华吧为友情贴吧这样来这里的朋友都可以直接右转才华吧了多方便恩

有没有懂离散数学的大神 f(n) 是数列通项公式，像 f(n)=5f(n-1)+6f(n+1) 问f(n) 的解析式是什么这样的问题离散数学上有什么方法可以球吗?像Z变换那样的

看到因高考落榜而跳楼的新闻.. 总是让我想到悲惨世界中的警长沙威

【白衣卿相】只知法国波德莱尔至今才知柳三变真是惭愧啊

希望再没有人是为了避世而学习数学或物理如题正如尼采所言将欲与无欲的追求归于原子何等荒唐曾了解过某些人由于生活上遇到挫折或阻碍就假借追求数学，真理之名遂开始独断的狂信殊不知科学不能解决你回避的问题反倒是锐化了这些问题它们将会以更紧迫的形式爆发出来若真到了这时候，能否重建价值观就看个人自己了相吧大神很多氛围也属较好但是在浏览帖子的时候自我意识较弱的人很容易作出一种平均化即看不到大神背后的教育经历，或常年思考，及性格特点等等差异性。由此可能会导致独断，即不加批判的相信自己的能力，盲目学习。然后...祝大家前程似锦...再然后Lz小弱一只，完全不懂什么高深的数学物理什么的，大神求罩

肾不好怎么办

云计算就是分布式计算吗？是不是我使用迅雷之类的软件同时要贡献一部分计算资源？还是说迅雷服务器那边自己有用于分布式计算的网络？

360加速球包含了虚拟内存吗 RT.....顺便我瞎想了一下..= =..手机能不能搞出多CPU的主板，然后每块不同用机器语言，合在一起变成一个intel的Cpu.....