钱穆先生全集：读史随劄（繁体坚排版 新校本） azw3 网盘 电子书 下载 全格式

展开

展开

展开

展开

展开

在线阅读地址：钱穆先生全集：读史随劄（繁体坚排版 新校本）在线阅读

在线听书地址：钱穆先生全集：读史随劄（繁体坚排版 新校本）在线收听

在线购买地址：钱穆先生全集：读史随劄（繁体坚排版 新校本）在线购买

PDF下载地址：钱穆先生全集：读史随劄（繁体坚排版 新校本）PDF下载

展开

本套丛书包含：

《钱穆先生全集----古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集----史记地名考（上下） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《史记地名考（上下新校本） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解(新校本)/钱穆先生全集【新华书店正版图书】 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解(新校本)/钱穆先生全集 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 九州出版社 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集----古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 钱穆 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《古史地理论丛 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解(新校本)/钱穆先生全集 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《论语新解 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集：中国历史精神（繁体坚排版 新校本） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集----阳明学述要 繁体竖排版 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集:两汉经学今古文平议（繁体坚排版 新校本） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集（第三辑 共拾壹种） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集:国学概论（繁体坚排版 新校本） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集----灵魂与心 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集：读史随劄（繁体坚排版 新校本） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集：中国思想史（繁体坚排版 新校本） 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《钱穆先生全集----中国文学论丛 繁体竖排版 九州出版 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

《答案之书（精装）(我的人生解答书) 电子书网盘下载 2024 pdf mobi txt》

展开

展开

查看其它书籍精彩书评

• 《北京城的生命印记》读后

  作者：清流 发布时间：2022-12-31 21:55:58

  第一次知晓“侯仁之”这个名字，是十多年前在北京宣南文化博物馆的展板中，当时我还不知道侯仁之先生是历史地理学三大家之一，曾组织编绘过《北京宣南历史地图集》，只是对介绍里侯先生的长寿印象深刻。到了去年，翻开侯先生的博士论文中译本《北平历史地理》，精装版附有一份侯仁之《狱中腹稿》的复印件，由此才初步领会了先生对北京的热爱，即使深陷囹圄也不能终止。这本书的排版非常好，对侯先生手绘的地图更是印象深刻。（今年春天又看到侯仁之主编的88年版《北京历史地图集》，更加精美）后来得知另一本著作《北京城的生命印记》，随即就被“生命印记”这四个字吸引了，恰好同时见到三联再版的消息，立刻入手，至本月末读毕。

  《北京城的生命印记》是侯先生关于北京历史地理的文章合集。分为“城址起源与变迁”、“河湖水系”、“规划、设计与改造”、“景物溯源”、“地图与碑记”五个主题，收录的内容也较驳杂，既有学术论文，也有报纸文章、会议讲稿，且即便按照文章内容划分了不同主题，互相之间内容的同质性也非常强，因此耐读性和系统性实际要逊于《北平历史地理》。其中，《北京城的沿革》可以看成一部简明的北京史，不过个人最喜欢的是《北京都市发展过程中的水源问题》《北京海淀附近的地形、水道与聚落》《记英国国家图书馆所藏请雍正北京城图》三篇。侯先生所还原的不止是一部“北京史”，太行山麓的古代大道、元代浩淼的积水潭、清代汇集涓滴细流的引水石槽、海淀一带稻浪翻滚的浅湖，都融入了北京城的动态发展中。而我们今天看到的莲花池、后门桥、什刹海等古城遗迹，也是在侯先生的努力下保存下来。北京城的生命也因之保留了文化的血脉，走向未来。

  一般历史地理学著作的面貌多数是历代疆域、行政区划的变迁，但这本书的文章让我耳目一新，特别是关于水源、海淀聚落的部分，论点立足于作者的实地调查，又通过等高线地形图勾勒出“海淀台地”、“巴沟低地”的轮廓。我的感觉，侯先生精通于文献、舆图的考证，但种种历史手段最终仍然要为诠释地理问题而服务。然而随着近年学科的分工，这研究方法日益受到沿革地理（现今历史地理学主流）、考古学（尤其是城市考古）、自然地理（在古代环境、水系的变迁方面）、城市规划的分割和挤压，学科分工固然有利于深入研究，却不利于建立综合性的事业和向大众普及。如何让城市地理的“生命印记”走向未来，有用于世，还尚待学人的不懈探索。

  展开

• 我痛恨人类，为的是免得瞧不起人类

  作者：胡晓晨 发布时间：2019-09-14 22:36:46

  俄国文学史上多余人的形象是沿着拜伦式的英雄一路发展下来的，即指那些经历过人生重创，对于世界有清醒的意识，却无法在这个世界施展拳脚，又因他人的不理解或厌弃而痛苦不堪的典型。从普希金的叶甫盖尼·奥涅金到莱蒙托夫《当代英雄》里的毕巧林，一个变化就是从游戏人生到彻底的厌世、抑郁、自杀倾向。“那有什么？死就死呗！对于世界又不是多大的损失；况且我自己也活得够腻烦了。”这种自杀倾向是彻头彻尾的孤独，一种无法被理解的难受：“也许，我明天就要死了！……人世上不会有谁完全了解我的。”毕巧林一生交友、恋爱无数，人们常说起他，却没有人能够走进他。

  为了突出这一点，小说在结构上也做了一点巧妙的设计。上半部的“我”作为第一人称叙事视角，从一个叫马克西姆的上尉那里听说了毕巧林这个人，此时的毕巧林在马克西姆的言谈中是这样的形象：“这个人就是这样，想怎么样，就得依着他，显然是小时候妈妈把他惯坏了。”“年轻人就是年轻人，总是沉不住气！”“我一向就知道，他是个轻浮的人，一点也不可靠。说实话，真可惜呀，他下场会很糟的……”

  第二部是毕巧林的日记，“我”变成了毕巧林自己，而且是解剖内心的自己。“我本来很淳朴，可是大家说我很滑头，我就不再那样坦率了。我本来在感情上善恶分明，可是没有谁爱护我，大家都侮辱我，我就变得容易记仇了。我从小郁郁寡欢……”

  毕巧林这样的人物很容易让人想起太宰治的《人间失格》：“尽管在过往的人生中，我无数次希望有人能杀了我，但我从未想过要杀人。因为面对可怕的对手，我反而希望对方幸福。”再看《当代英雄》里的字句：“我痛恨人类，为的是免得瞧不起人类，不然的话，人生就成为太令人生厌的滑稽戏了。”“我整个的一生不过是一连串跟心灵或理智作对的可悲和失败的事例。”

  上下部的对比更突出毕巧林不被理解、无用于世的悲哀。这就好比当拜伦拔出哈姆雷特的剑准备与世界一战时，资本家凑上前问他这把剑多少钱，弗洛伊德凑上前问他剑是不是阳具的隐喻，更多的普通人互相戳戳身边人：“快看那个疯子又在演戏了。”

  俄国文学史上最重要的陀和托，他俩的相似之处就是在寻找更普世的斗争与和解。以《卡拉马佐夫兄弟》为例，无赖与高尚同出于一个家庭，陀思妥耶夫斯基在《宗教大法官》一章里将世界残忍地解剖为奇迹、秘密和权威。“自由、自由思想和科学把他们搅得晕头转向，面对如此莫名其妙的奇迹和解不开的秘密，他们中的一部分桀骜不驯的将自己毁灭自己，另一部分虽不驯服、但不能够强悍地互相毁灭，余下的第三部分孱弱可怜的将爬到我们脚边来向我们哀求：‘是的，你们是对的，只有你们掌握着他的秘密，我们要回到你们这边来，教教我们免受我们自己的折磨吧！’”但陀氏又说：“兄弟们，不要害怕罪过；人即便有罪，也要爱他，因为这才与上帝的爱庶几近之，这才是世界上最高的爱。要爱上帝创造的一切，爱其总体，也爱每一粒恒河之沙。爱每一片叶子，每一道上帝之光。如若万物你皆爱之，你将从万物中领悟到上帝的奥秘。一旦有所领悟，你将开始孜孜不倦地一天天加深认识。最后你会爱上整个世界，那将是心连广宇，淼淼乎无所不包的爱。”他看到世界最悲哀的运转机制，却仍在说“爱”，这是他的矛盾与困惑，也是人类无解的哲学难题，极度清醒时叹息地给出了无可奈何的答案。托尔斯泰也在找寻东正教隐忍的、苦行僧式的最高救赎，《复活》里的聂赫留朵夫已经超越了自我，他的一切行为与成就自我没有任何关系，而彻彻底底是为救赎他人、帮助他人。他在荒凉人世里尽自己最后一丝气力为这无望的世界，完全摆脱享乐主义、自我中心对他的困扰。

  可以说，毕巧林这个形象是从叶甫盖尼·奥涅金到陀与托的小说里的人物上很重要的一个过渡环节。他们先从这庸俗人世中撤离出来，先是诗酒玩世，渐趋悲观厌世，最后回头一望远被落在后面那些无知的、不知如何救赎自己、甚至不知“救赎”为何物的人类，他们终于忍不住悲天悯人的一瞥，于是牺牲自己来救赎人类。所以说，莱蒙托夫若活到足够的年纪绝对能与陀和托并肩，绝不夸张，他就差在一定年纪时回头一瞥——可惜他27岁就去世了。

  另外要提一下的是环境对俄国文学的影响。在俄国文学里，我们没少看到广袤、荒凉的景色，有的作家把它写成美丽的祖国风光，有的把它写成一片萧瑟肃杀。处于亚寒带的俄国这一片冰原、无边无际的田野、连绵起伏的高山对于作者心态肯定多少是有影响的。帕斯捷尔纳克的《日瓦戈医生》：“晒得像白石灰一样的俄罗斯，田野、草原、城市、乡村，在一团团滚热的灰尘中从旁边驰过。”果戈里的《死魂灵》：“被撕碎的空气呼啸着化为疾风，大地上所有的一切都从旁飞掠过，其他民族和国家都睇视着闪到一旁，给她让开大路。”“崇山峻岭逶迤千里，宛如有雉堞和炮眼的雄伟的城墙，拱卫这广阔无垠的要塞。”莱蒙托夫也没忽视描绘罗斯这幅美景：“这儿的一切都显得十分幽静，一切都显得十分神秘——那椴树丛中小道上的浓荫。浓荫下是一道道流水，流水哗哗地从一块石板落向另一块石板，在一座座青山之间为自己开辟着道路；那雾气弥漫、静默无声的峡谷，峡谷还有分支从这儿通向四面八方；那充溢着南方茂草和刺槐气息的清新芳香的空气；那冰冷的小溪日夜不停、催人入眠的淙淙水声，一条条小溪在谷地尾部汇合后，一齐欢快地奔流着……”这幅开阔的俄国风光似乎也培养了俄国作家深刻的洞察力，俄国文学给人的总体感觉就是完美呈现了人类复杂的外部世界与内部世界。放到《当代英雄》这部小说来说，高加索与世隔绝的自然风光寄托了主人公心灵的解放，当人类介入到他的生存环境里，他甚至几乎要丧失语言能力。对于毕巧林来说，自然是他逃避人世的唯一去处。（这点很像陶渊明。）

  最后说回到标题《当代英雄》，很明显这是莱蒙托夫对于毕巧林的人生态度的肯定。在作者心里，这个时代的英雄救不了这个世界，他既没阿喀琉斯的“力拔山兮气盖世”，也没《罗兰之歌》里那份“忠心”；他得不到身边任何人的敬仰，甚至连自己也厌弃自己。然而他超越其他人的，是他大胆的知觉看穿了人生的无聊，看穿了宿命的悲哀，而其他人却在男欢女爱、柴米油盐里庸碌了一生。

  展开

• Division of Labor: Solidarity or Collapse?

  作者：MrVeritas 发布时间：2012-11-01 12:12:31

  Foundations of modern social theory的final，纪念某个清晨，一个睡眼朦胧的女孩被涂尔干的思想醍醐灌顶而清醒无比的感觉。

  ——————

  As two of the three greatest sociologists in the 20th century, Durkheim and Marx have different interpretations of division of labor in modernity. In this essay, I will discuss their views on the role of division of labor in modernity and whether pathologies resulting from division of labor can be resolved within capitalism.

  I. Role of division of labor in modernity

  Both Durkheim and Marx did vertical (historical) and horizontal analysis on the role of division of labor. They both admit that division of labor is a vital momentum in social structural changes, though they have different attitudes on it-Durkheim is more positive about future social structural adjustment while Marx regards it as an ultimate power in self-destruction of capitalism.

  A

  In vertical analysis, Durkheim describes the social structural evolution as mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, with analogy of biological evolution from lower organisms to higher organisms. And it was the division of labor that forced the change. In mechanical solidarity, people were united by similarity, with lower level of division of labor. However, demographic and technological factors, as well as heightened social interactions all made contributions to the development of division of labor. Because of the division of labor, the original work was divided into different pieces, occupied by different persons – people became more specialized and concentrated on narrower fields. Such specialization weakened the similarity among mechanical solidarity, which is the basis of collective consciousness. People feeling alienated from each other and the binding of society being loose, mechanical solidarity was finally deconstructed.

  Nonetheless, the advanced division of labor, leading to the destruction of mechanical solidarity, is exactly the force to shape the society into organic solidarity and the binding to maintain the organic solidarity. People realized that the more solidary they became, the more interdependent they are. For example, in the streamline construction of car, every worker is in charge of a tiny part of the car, which would drastically improve the work efficiency. Also, without any one part, they would fail to build a perfect and complete car. Therefore, a new form of social structure has generated. In the organic society, people are so specialized that no one can be an “encyclopedia”. On the contrary, it is the specialization that leads them to self-realization, achieving greatness in their own fields. Besides, interdependence brought up by division of labor makes it impossible to be a real solitary, thus maintaining the organic solidarity.

  However, Marx has a bitter interpretation of division of labor, instead, quite contrary to Durkheim’s. Although Marx admit the division of labor is the force to change the social structure, unlike Durkheim’s positive interpretation of it, Marx regards it as evil but functional. His invention of class analysis helped him extract two classes from the society, the oppressor and the oppressed. Capital accumulation was based on division of labor, which drastically improves the work efficiency. It is because the estranged labor in the streamlining manufacturing process can produce much more productions, thus giving rise to the genesis of bourgeoisie and supporting their political powers. The intensified tension between bourgeoisie and the lords finally let all that is solid melt into air.

  Nonetheless, division of labor, which serves as supportive power in the social structural change from feudalism to capitalism, in turn generates the ultimate power in self-destruction of capitalism. The division of labor was necessarily followed by alienation of the workers, which finally triggers a new form of class struggle: bourgeoisie versus proletariat. In this struggle, the proletariat must win, Marx stated, for the bourgeoisie is dependent on the labor, the majority of the society. The appropriation of property, which attributes most part of property to small amounts of capitalists, is the terminal illness of capitalism. Therefore, just as the way capitalists united together to overthrow feudalism, the tense contradiction between capitalists and workers brought up by division of labor - or we can say, alienation - leads capitalists to the road of self-destruction.

  B

  In horizontal analysis, Durkheim and Marx have very different methodologies. Durkheim’s analysis is labor-labor based while Marx is person-person based. Let me illustrate it:

  Durkheim knows that in the organic solidarity with highly developed division of labor, people and labor slots are separate. Occupation is stable while people in the slots change over the years. Because Durkheim focused on the stable labor slots, he can easily find from them the collective consciousness, which is based on the interdependence of each labor slots. From the social structural perspective, such interdependence driven by division of labor is the gluten of organic solidarity. Besides, from the aspect of individual, he states that normal form of division of labor is good for everyone to exert himself. Specialization would help each individual to explore deeper in his or her own field, which would in turn benefit the society and make the collective consciousness even stronger.

  While Marx’s horizontal analysis is individual based. Instead of focusing on the advantages of divided slots filled with different workers, Marx lays more emphasis on the individuals. He pointed out that the workers were alienated from the object of production, the act of production, species being as well as fellow man. The alienation from the object of production makes workers not able to enjoy the fruits of labor – the appropriation of property occurs; the alienation from the act of production makes them not able to freely develop his physical and mental energy and enjoy their jobs; the alienation from species being dehumanizes them into machines; the alienation from fellow man makes them lose the communication with each other as well as their employers. Such alienation won’t last too long for workers will finally stand up to fight against it, thus shaping the society into communism where class struggle disappears forever.

  The divergence between Durkheim and Marx in terms of horizontal analysis results from their different perspectives and methodologies on division of labor, which also lead to their opposite predictions of capitalism.

  II. Whether pathologies can be resolved within capitalism

  Durkheim pointed out that organic society is more complex than mechanical society where similarity serves as the foundation of collective consciousness to unite the human beings - whereas the organic solidarity is based on division of labor. Division of labor will automatically generate two forces: centripetal force versus centrifugal force. Centripetal force is the unifier of the solidarity, based on interdependence, forming collective consciousness; centrifugal force is the alienating workers from labor and the whole social vision, which could be strong enough to generate pathologies. Durkheim pointed out three pathologies: anomic division of labor (such as bankruptcy), force division of labor and mismatch.

  Anomic division of labor can be attributed to the excess strong centrifugal force. In the huge global market, we get lost because we cannot see or even imagine the market. The only thing that we are sure about is our own labor slot. Such blindness leads to inefficient production – it’s one form of market failure. But Durkheim thinks such situation is abnormal, rather than natural feature of division of labor. Normally, workers are able to realize their roles in the society without getting lost.

  Force division of labor and mismatch are similar with Marx’s interpretation of alienation. Because the distribution of property is routinized to form classes, we lack absolute freedom to choose the job that we really want and be able to do. And Durkheim prescribes a solution – it’s the only and final solution – we should eliminate external inequality to maintain a free and equal condition for making contracts. “The ideal of organic society is to inject an even greater equity into our social relationships, in order to ensure the free deployment of all those forces that are socially useful.” His attention to justice is based on social function rather than morality. (His morally neutrality would attract high praise from Weber, I guess.)

  Anyway, Durkheim posited that all these are pathologies that can be resolved within capitalism. He conceived of a social system that can automatically adjust its operation in response to extrinsic factors and feedback. He assumed that these pathologies are common and normal to the social operation, just like illness and malfunctions occasionally occurring in our body. Actually, after overcome the pathologies, the social structure would be refreshed and more stable.

  However, Marx made a pessimistic interpretation of these pathologies. He focused on individuals’ reactions – such alienation would finally burst into destructive power to capitalism. He regards these pathologies as terminal illness that would necessarily occur, which capitalism would finally fail to devour them. His incisive observation of capitalistic economic operation let him believe that the deep contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat will finally lead to radical social structural change. Like the triad thesis – antithesis – synthesis, proletariat would someday unite to fight against bourgeoisie and reach harmonious communism where no class struggle exists. Whether the bourgeoisie would remain antagonistic to proletariat and whether proletariat, as alienated workers, could communicate and unite are two questions that only time could tell. One thing to clarify, division of labor itself is not always a bad thing – even in communism, there exists division of labor, which is the indispensable feature of modernity. But in capitalism, division of labor would necessarily goes to extreme to alienation, which will destroy capitalism in the end.

  III. Comments

  First, Durkheim’s analysis is based on social level instead of individual’s. His advocating eliminating the external inequality may just be wishful thinking, because the contemporary capitalism is dependent on inequality. Take American criminal law for example. Although consciously, people believe the equality before law, the truth is, the poor, the minority and the uneducated burden more liabilities than the privileged – they would be sentenced to death because they cannot afford excellent lawyers to defend for them. The formal justice of law would be distorted into double standard in the administration of criminal justice system due to the economic and social inequalities. Without inequality, the privileged cannot enjoy their constitutional rights on minimal cost. And they also lack the motives to reform the social system to realize true equality before law. This is capitalistic intrinsic contradiction. For the purpose to maintain their privileges, capitalism may adopt different methods to alleviate the contradiction between classes, while I think ultimately eliminating the equality is impossible. On the other hand, Durkheim’s analogy of biological structure also has bugs. He ignores the individual characters. In our body, we know that some organs are more important than others, such as brain. But our organs lack consciousness and humanity, so they would not complain the equalities and still work together for the whole body. While human beings have the instinct to compare with each other so the unequal levels of their roles and functions can spur a huge problem in the society. So I think his social based analysis absent individual level’s attention is the Achilles heel.

  Second, I think Durkheim and Marx can be complementary. Marx focused on the ultimate effects of class struggle while contemporary capitalism proves that it has the elasticity to adjust to the contradiction in class struggles. Durkhiem can explain the social state of peace; Marx can explain the radical reform of social structure. We can see after every economic crisis, capitalism is refreshed instead of destroyed. It processed in an upward spiral and that’s the best routine of social structural evolution ever. It is still unknown whether the society will radically change its form into communism.

  Third, the reason why we cannot tell the future of social structural evolution is that we cannot predict the war of centripetal force versus centrifugal force generated by division of labor. Division of labor has pros and cons. Durkheim believes pros - centripetal force will be the winner while Marx the opposite. And the result of war will decide whether pathologies would be resolved within capitalism.

  展开

• 第5章【金融市场和银行业】

  作者：傻白甜 发布时间：2021-02-26 11:41:19

  

  金融市场和银行业

  在很多国家，银行业是企业资金的主要来源，其作用在没有公司债券市场的国家尤其显著。

  然而银行业与资本市场对公司的相对重要性在不同国家中又各有不同。

  欧美法系国家重视股东权益，市场影响对公司更为重要；而大陆法系国家对公司则更多地依赖于银行。

  偏重银行国家的公司相对处于偏重市场国家的公司而言，有更高的财务杠杆。

  展开

• 读《人间消息》有感

  作者：Purple Memory 发布时间：2019-06-26 19:43:23

  展开