人類理解論 (II)
- 语言:
- 英语
- 状态:
- 完整作品
- 作者归属:
- 作者本人所著
- 文本状况:
- 未检测到扫描噪点 (对全文的自动评估,未经人工核对)
- 篇幅:
- 约 160,000 词 · 738 个段落
引用本作品
- APA约翰·洛克. (n.d.). An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 2 [人類理解論 (II)]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/john-locke/an-essay-concerning-humane-understanding-volume-2
- MLA约翰·洛克. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 2 [人類理解論 (II)]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/john-locke/an-essay-concerning-humane-understanding-volume-2.
- Chicago约翰·洛克. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 2 [人類理解論 (II)]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/john-locke/an-essay-concerning-humane-understanding-volume-2.
这是 SigPhi 所复制版本的引用:SigPhi 是其数字复制品,不是出版者。元数据中没有版本年份(因此写作“n.d.”),译者只有在有记录时才列出。
内容简介
洛克《人类理解论》第二卷:含第三、四部,论语词,论人类知识可及于何处。
背景与流传
一六八九年出版,题作一六九〇年;洛克生前历五版不断改写。本目录分作两卷:卷一含第一、二卷——驳斥天赋观念,并说明一切观念如何自感觉与反省而生;卷二含第三、四卷,论语言,论我们所能知者之界限。书名中的“Humane”并非误植,乃当时的拼法。整套英语哲学词汇皆出于此书,第一性质与第二性质之分、以及近代关于人格同一性的最初讨论亦在其中;贝克莱与休谟二人皆自与之辩难起步。
这是编辑性背景,不是可引用的来源:与作品本身的段落不同,这些说明无法在语料库中核对。
By the same way that they come by the general name and idea of MAN, they easily advance to more general names and notions. For, observing that several things that differ from their idea of man, and cannot therefore be comprehended out under that name, have yet certain qualities wherein they agree with man, by retaining only those qualities, and uniting them into one idea, they have again another and more general idea; to which having given a name they make a term of a more comprehensive extension: which new idea is made, not by any new addition, but only as before, by leaving out the shape, and some other properties signified by the name man, and retaining only a body, with life, sense, and spontaneous motion, comprehended under the name animal. 9. General natures are nothing but abstract and partial ideas of more complex ones. That this is the way whereby men first formed general ideas, and general names to them, I think is so evident, that there needs no other proof of it but the considering of a man's self, or others, and the ordinary proceedings of their minds in knowledge. And he that thinks GENERAL NATURES or NOTIONS are anything else but such abstract and partial ideas of more complex ones, taken at first from particular existences, will, I fear, be at a loss where to find them. For let any one effect, and then tell me, wherein does his idea of MAN differ from that of PETER and PAUL, or his idea of HORSE from that of BUCEPHALUS, but in the leaving out something that is peculiar to each individual, and retaining so much of those particular complex ideas of several particular existences as they are found to agree in?…