1701879367
[16] David Runciman, “Democracy’s Dual Dangers,” The Chronicle Review (November 18, 2013).。
1701879368
1701879369
[17] Francis Fukuyama, “The Decay of American Political Institutions,” The American Interest(December 8, 2013).
1701879370
1701879371
[18] Mark Lilla, “Arendt and Eichmann: The New Truth,” The New York Review of Books(November 21, 2013 Issue); “The Defense of a Jewish Collaborator,” The New York Review of Books (December 5, 2013 Issue).
1701879372
1701879373
[19] Mark Lilla, “Arendt and Eichmann: The New Truth”.
1701879374
1701879375
[20] Roger Berkowitz, “Arendt and Eichmann,” reply by Mark Lilla, The New York Review of Books (December 19, 2013 Issue).
1701879376
1701879377
[21] Steven Pinker, “Science Is Not Your Enemy,” The New Republic (August 6, 2013).
1701879378
1701879379
[22] Leon Wieseltier, “Crimes Against Humanities,” The New Republic (September 3, 2013).
1701879380
1701879381
[23] Steven Pinker and Leon Wieseltier, “Science vs. the Humanities, Round III,” The New Republic(September 26, 2013).
1701879382
1701879383
[24] Daniel C. Dennett, “Let’s Start With A Respect For Truth” (September 10, 2013), http://www.edge.org/conversation/dennett-on-wieseltier-v-pinker-in-the-new-republic.
1701879384
1701879385
[25] “Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’” (June 28, 2013), http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html.
1701879386
1701879387
[26] “Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’” (July 17, 2013), http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizekresponds-to-noam-chomsky.html.
1701879388
1701879389
[27] “The Feud Continues: Noam Chomsky Responds to Žižek, Describes Remarks as ‘Sheer Fantasy’”(July 22, 2013), http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/noam-chomsky-responds-tozizek-describes-remarks-as-sheer-fantasy.html.
1701879390
1701879391
[28] Slavoj Žižek, “Some Bewildered Clarifications,” International Journal of Žižek Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2013).
1701879392
1701879393
[29] Peter Thompson, “The Slavoj Žižek v. Noam Chomsky spat is worth a ringside seat,” The Guardian (July 19, 2013)
1701879394
1701879395
[30] Joshua Clover, “Atlantic Rim: Chomsky v. Žižek,” The Nation (September 2-9, 2013).
1701879396
1701879397
[31] David Rieff, “A Battle for the Soul of India,” The National Interest, September 4, 2013.
1701879398
1701879399
[32] Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, “Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries,”Public Affairs, April 2013.
1701879400
1701879401
[33] Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions (Princeton University Press, July 2013).
1701879402
1701879403
[34] “Indian development: Beyond bootstrap,” The Economist, June 27, 2013.
1701879404
1701879405
[35] Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, “Go for growth in India,” The Economist, July 13, 2013.
1701879406
1701879407
[36] “Amartya Sen responds,” The Economist, July 20, 2013.
1701879408
1701879409
1701879410
1701879411
1701879413
2000年以来的西方 2012年
1701879414
1701879415
这是一个混沌的年代，也是一个充满可能性的年代。当下西方知识界对于多种重要议题的纷争，在相当大程度上表现出不确定性的思想特征。此前固有的知识与信念遭到怀疑，而未来的前景似乎于迷雾之中若隐若现。
1701879416
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.701879367e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]