有时间要补完！p. 57-89. intellectual history: the danger of teleology. the return of historical figures' agency and intentionality; the discursive utterance as localized in historical particularity; What people are "doing" when saying things - discourse as performance. against "contributing to unit ideas" but the history of USEs in arguments.
The dispute between the Cambridge School and the Straussians arises not so much from different methods of interpretation as from their contrasting aims in reading the ancients. Strauss reads them to learn from their wisdom, Skinner reads them to congratulate himself on his own intelligence.
This is a must-read for those who are interested in how to do intellectual history. Skinner explains what his historical contexualism is. He propounded an interesting explanation on the difference between intention and motivation. Intention is what one has in his/her mind when one does something. Motivation is the preceding event.
写法略嫌重复，四和八精彩。基于contextualization、speech act以及更广义的语言学/修辞学讨论的方法论一种。斯金纳健笔如椽，条分缕析的功夫、尤其是辨析他人多有所混淆的地方非常厉害。Intro结尾太有力，简直是对语言、甚至对书写最深情的告白。"The plea is to recognise that the pen is a mighty sword...We may be freer than we sometimes suppose."至于某个朝令夕改的国度，大约充斥着“paradiastolic redescription”吧。
补标：读于2018秋 “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, History and Theory；57-89”应当是这本书里最重要的方法论的文章。Skinner二十多岁时的锐气和现在非常不同，以至于他还需要之后写一篇文章矫正说自己之前的言辞太过于锋利——里面有不少snarky的玩笑。Skinner关注的是写作者的意图，可以说是以史为鉴看春秋笔法。
0 有用 skeeter 2010-01-16 06:46:35
grrrrrreat writer, powerful mind
0 有用 Donald 2014-07-22 19:53:57
The guy has such a powerful mind!
0 有用 philohistoria 2011-07-12 19:04:16
启发颇大。
0 有用 忘憂 2013-05-08 15:27:48
Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, History and Theory；57-89 （二十餘歲發表）
0 有用 momo 2022-04-11 04:38:50
有时间要补完！p. 57-89. intellectual history: the danger of teleology. the return of historical figures' agency and intentionality; the discursive utterance as localized in historical particularity; What people are "doing" when saying things - discourse as performance. against "contributing to unit ideas" but the history of USEs in arguments.
1 有用 榆杉子 2023-10-19 22:40:53 英国
思想史和知识史领域的圣经。// 论文写了十几天，昨日完工的同时也见到了斯金纳本人，心满意足喽。其实第九章Idea of Cultural Lexicon才是最好的，斯金纳本人认证～
0 有用 Vinland 2023-11-16 01:29:28 北京
写论文需要，按图索骥重点看了七十年代的几篇，但其实到这本书里观点已有细微的变化。不敢说读懂，其间的学术背景很复杂。
0 有用 たんぽぽちゃん 2023-10-21 10:02:46 四川
感觉欧陆自由主义和后现代都是在回应自身古典传统。斯金纳在本质形式问题上很有回归柏拉图的倾向。 虽然斯金纳和伯林不完全对付，但他们都有一个顶级优点就是能把复杂的问题说得清晰明了啊……读起来像读中文一样流畅。反倒是华文世界去海外用英文做研究的学者，写出来的英文就连母语者都得纠结好久哈哈哈。
0 有用 Kobeni 2022-12-22 22:58:09 广东
好
0 有用 Uaral 2016-10-27 10:35:19
10.3 1-7 27-144 “Seeing things their Way”, “Interpretation, Rationality, and Truth”, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”
0 有用 瓜 2016-09-29 00:49:56
The dispute between the Cambridge School and the Straussians arises not so much from different methods of interpretation as from their contrasting aims in reading the ancients. Strauss reads them to learn from their wisdom, Skinner reads them to congratulate himself on his own intelligence.
0 有用 Elie 2019-05-06 03:49:46
"meaning and understanding in the history of ideas"
0 有用 SuSo 2013-01-26 09:31:07
This is a must-read for those who are interested in how to do intellectual history. Skinner explains what his historical contexualism is. He propounded an interesting explanation on the difference between intention and motivation. Intention is what one has in his/her mind when one does something. Motivation is the preceding event.
0 有用 野次馬 2019-01-11 16:35:50
写法略嫌重复，四和八精彩。基于contextualization、speech act以及更广义的语言学/修辞学讨论的方法论一种。斯金纳健笔如椽，条分缕析的功夫、尤其是辨析他人多有所混淆的地方非常厉害。Intro结尾太有力，简直是对语言、甚至对书写最深情的告白。"The plea is to recognise that the pen is a mighty sword...We may be freer than we sometimes suppose."至于某个朝令夕改的国度，大约充斥着“paradiastolic redescription”吧。
0 有用 曼殊 2021-06-04 14:56:12
准确、犀利、雄辩
0 有用 明月胜 2020-02-17 14:11:01
补标：读于2018秋 “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, History and Theory；57-89”应当是这本书里最重要的方法论的文章。Skinner二十多岁时的锐气和现在非常不同，以至于他还需要之后写一篇文章矫正说自己之前的言辞太过于锋利——里面有不少snarky的玩笑。Skinner关注的是写作者的意图，可以说是以史为鉴看春秋笔法。
0 有用 召元甫 2022-07-11 22:55:13
这本书文风太过晦涩（相比之下斯金纳的学生Eric Nelson的书就非常清晰），一定程度上阻碍了斯金纳的思想被学人接受。（据说有人翻译了这本书7年还没翻译完，估计放弃了。）参考了其中一章，发现斯金纳其实懂很多哲学，他的想法跟罗蒂比较接近。
0 有用 张开地 2021-11-13 00:36:42
不读的人不懂思想史