What do you think?
Rate this book
賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱爻丨乇
Book by Ludwig Wittgenstein
154 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
10 people are currently reading
507 people want to read
About the author
Ludwig Wittgenstein
200听books2,794听followersLudwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (Ph.D., Trinity College, Cambridge University, 1929) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.
Described by Bertrand Russell as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating", he helped inspire two of the twentieth century's principal philosophical movements: the Vienna Circle and Oxford ordinary language philosophy. According to an end of the century poll, professional philosophers in Canada and the U.S. rank both his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations among the top five most important books in twentieth-century philosophy, the latter standing out as "...the one crossover masterpiece in twentieth-century philosophy, appealing across diverse specializations and philosophical orientations". Wittgenstein's influence has been felt in nearly every field of the humanities and social sciences, yet there are widely diverging interpretations of his thought.
Described by Bertrand Russell as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating", he helped inspire two of the twentieth century's principal philosophical movements: the Vienna Circle and Oxford ordinary language philosophy. According to an end of the century poll, professional philosophers in Canada and the U.S. rank both his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations among the top five most important books in twentieth-century philosophy, the latter standing out as "...the one crossover masterpiece in twentieth-century philosophy, appealing across diverse specializations and philosophical orientations". Wittgenstein's influence has been felt in nearly every field of the humanities and social sciences, yet there are widely diverging interpretations of his thought.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
May 26, 2020
My low rating is not about Wittgenstein's piece (which is as fascinating as any of Wittgenstein's work); the rating targets the series of anthropology articles that response to this piece, which make up the majority of this anthology. As a student of philosophy, I could only find these articles either amusing or vacuous. It is very possible that for people used to the frameworks and questions that drive anthropologists these articles could be of actual interest. But from my limited standpoint, all of the contributors to this anthology fundamentally miss Wittgenstein's key insight. Instead, they misread him, and tie their interpretations to general theories or themes in anthropology, all of which were presented in such a general manner that I could not learn anything. At first, I read with hopes that these articles could make sense of Wittgenstein; when I saw that was not going to happen, I adjusted my expectations, and read with hopes to learn something about anthropology. Even the latter did not happen.
Wittgenstein's piece itself consists in his responses to parts of the infamous classic work in anthropology Frazer's Golden Bough. Frazer never did any field work and only read books from the library about various rituals and practices found across time and place, which seemed exotic from his high class English background. Frazer's work is infamous from our contemporary standpoint because he interpreted and evaluated all of these rituals from his own 20th century English perspective; it is blatantly parochial and zenophobic. Wittgenstein's responses are all criticisms of Frazer; they are also revealing of Wittgenstein's overall philosophy of language and the position of this philosophy against dominant trends of theorizing in Western philosophy and science.
Most of Wittgenstein's responses are variations on this general point: Frazer picks out this or that ritual, remarking on how primitive and unscientific it is (e.g., raindances aimed to cause the sky to rain). Wittgenstein argues that Frazer has fundamentally misunderstood the character of the human practice of ritual; it is not a causal intervention into the order of nature, like a scientific experiment or technology. Rather, ritual is an expression of human needs and desires.
Wittgenstein uses two revealing analogies to get at the nature of ritual. First, think of the commonplace experience of getting very angry and stomping one's foot or making some loud noise to express this anger. Second, think of the experience of kissing a photograph of one's lover, which is the expression of some desire. The behaviors carried out in a ritual are not supposed to accomplish some particular goal, that might appear to be it's goal--just like kissing a photograph is not supposed to accomplish the goal of kissing the beloved person herself, and stomping one's foot is not supposed to accomplish the goal of changing the past or altering whatever condition that is the basis of one's anger. Ritual behavior does not fall from any scientific hypothesis that is truth evaluable, and it does not pretend to be able to manipulate the natural world, as scientific experiments and technologies do. Frazer is wrong to think that rituals fall from 'primitive' people's misconceptions about the workings of the natural world.
Wittgenstein's critique falls from his insight in the philosophy of language that not all cases of language use are descriptive or factual. Philosophers of language before Wittgenstein assumed that all cases of language use must be made in reference to facts or states of affairs in the world, and so are truth evaluable. Wittgenstein blows that view out of the water. There are as many different functions or uses of language as there are diverse tools in a toolkit. A foreman may use an assertion to get a worker to bring over a brick, as to accomplish the building project. A poet might organize sentences as to evoke certain aesthetic experiences. These cases of language use do not pretend to be factual, and it is a category error, a fundamental misunderstanding, to try to evaluate these sentences as true or false.
The anthropologists who wrote response articles to Wittgenstein's piece all miss this key point, or they do not care about it. More than half of the articles involve quoting from Wittgenstein for the majority of the article's length, and then presenting vacuous commentary on these quotes. These commentaries seem to be stream-of-consciousness responding to Wittgenstein, not presenting any substantive points but being formed in wishy-washy language. Or, these commentaries just present a bunch of anthropologically observed examples of rituals that are somewhat related to a ritual that Wittgenstein mentions -- but the anthropologists do not analyze these rituals, and their describing these rituals has nothing to do with Wittgenstein's actual philosophical points!
I would recommend readers interested in Wittgensten to read only his piece, the first 30 pages of the book or so; don't waste your time going through the commentary articles. Perhaps readers who are trained in anthropology would enjoy these articles or understand the purposes they serve; but they do not have any apparent philosophical value.
Wittgenstein's piece itself consists in his responses to parts of the infamous classic work in anthropology Frazer's Golden Bough. Frazer never did any field work and only read books from the library about various rituals and practices found across time and place, which seemed exotic from his high class English background. Frazer's work is infamous from our contemporary standpoint because he interpreted and evaluated all of these rituals from his own 20th century English perspective; it is blatantly parochial and zenophobic. Wittgenstein's responses are all criticisms of Frazer; they are also revealing of Wittgenstein's overall philosophy of language and the position of this philosophy against dominant trends of theorizing in Western philosophy and science.
Most of Wittgenstein's responses are variations on this general point: Frazer picks out this or that ritual, remarking on how primitive and unscientific it is (e.g., raindances aimed to cause the sky to rain). Wittgenstein argues that Frazer has fundamentally misunderstood the character of the human practice of ritual; it is not a causal intervention into the order of nature, like a scientific experiment or technology. Rather, ritual is an expression of human needs and desires.
Wittgenstein uses two revealing analogies to get at the nature of ritual. First, think of the commonplace experience of getting very angry and stomping one's foot or making some loud noise to express this anger. Second, think of the experience of kissing a photograph of one's lover, which is the expression of some desire. The behaviors carried out in a ritual are not supposed to accomplish some particular goal, that might appear to be it's goal--just like kissing a photograph is not supposed to accomplish the goal of kissing the beloved person herself, and stomping one's foot is not supposed to accomplish the goal of changing the past or altering whatever condition that is the basis of one's anger. Ritual behavior does not fall from any scientific hypothesis that is truth evaluable, and it does not pretend to be able to manipulate the natural world, as scientific experiments and technologies do. Frazer is wrong to think that rituals fall from 'primitive' people's misconceptions about the workings of the natural world.
Wittgenstein's critique falls from his insight in the philosophy of language that not all cases of language use are descriptive or factual. Philosophers of language before Wittgenstein assumed that all cases of language use must be made in reference to facts or states of affairs in the world, and so are truth evaluable. Wittgenstein blows that view out of the water. There are as many different functions or uses of language as there are diverse tools in a toolkit. A foreman may use an assertion to get a worker to bring over a brick, as to accomplish the building project. A poet might organize sentences as to evoke certain aesthetic experiences. These cases of language use do not pretend to be factual, and it is a category error, a fundamental misunderstanding, to try to evaluate these sentences as true or false.
The anthropologists who wrote response articles to Wittgenstein's piece all miss this key point, or they do not care about it. More than half of the articles involve quoting from Wittgenstein for the majority of the article's length, and then presenting vacuous commentary on these quotes. These commentaries seem to be stream-of-consciousness responding to Wittgenstein, not presenting any substantive points but being formed in wishy-washy language. Or, these commentaries just present a bunch of anthropologically observed examples of rituals that are somewhat related to a ritual that Wittgenstein mentions -- but the anthropologists do not analyze these rituals, and their describing these rituals has nothing to do with Wittgenstein's actual philosophical points!
I would recommend readers interested in Wittgensten to read only his piece, the first 30 pages of the book or so; don't waste your time going through the commentary articles. Perhaps readers who are trained in anthropology would enjoy these articles or understand the purposes they serve; but they do not have any apparent philosophical value.
December 14, 2021
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓貙 亘賱 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 乇丕卅毓 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 兀賳 丕賱兀爻賱賵亘 賮賷 睾丕賷丞 丕賱氐毓賵亘丞貙 賵丨鬲賲丕賸 爻賷丨鬲丕噩 賱賯乇丕亍丞 孬丕賳賷丞
August 28, 2022
Decostruzione del soggetto antropologico europeo-vittoriano e rivalutazione epistemologica della pratica magico-religiosa. Consigliato.
January 6, 2023
Insieme di note riportate da Wittgenstein alla lettura dell'opera di Frazer il Ramo d'oro e raccolte a scopo privato. Sono riflessioni che denotano precisazioni sostanzialmente di metodo di cui fare tesoro.
September 15, 2011
W on Frazer!
never knew this existed.
never knew this existed.
March 22, 2019
賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 兀乇賵毓 賲丕 賯乇兀鬲 賲丐禺乇賸丕.
October 15, 2019
丕賱毓馗賷賲 賮賷鬲睾賳爻鬲丕賷賳
Read
October 2, 2020This is an interesting, gnomic collection of remarks by a great philosopher on an otherwise forgotten work of anthropological theory. I wonder what I would make of this if, instead of being a "book" by Wittgenstein, it were a pseudonymous blogpost from 2015. I probably would have read four lines, snorted, and closed the tab. But still, it does seem to be worth thinking about and chewing on. I wonder how much writing of this sort and of this quality gets posted on the internet and just languishes.
March 28, 2022
Leo, entre muchos ejemplos similares, el de un rey de la lluvia en 脕frica al cual la gente le pide que llueva cuando llega el per铆odo de la lluvia[41]. Pero lo que esto quiere decir, sin embargo, es que no creen precisamente que 茅l pueda hacer llover pues si no se lo pedir铆an en el per铆odo seco del a帽o cuando la tierra es a parched and arid desert[42] (芦un desierto quemado y 谩rido禄)...
Wittgenstein hace una lectura del texto la rama dorada de Frazer.
Esta frase citada arriba se帽ala la parte ritual de la situaci贸n, un ritual para llamar la lluvia en tiempos de lluvia.
Solo que esa interpretaci贸n es un error tambi茅n de parte Wittgenstein, porque justo lo que se quiere lograr con el chaman es eso: que llueva cuando no es tiempo de lluvias.
Los ind铆genas en las amazonas realizaban rituales similares, y atribu铆an sus fracasos a los conjuros de tribus vecinas, maldiciones de otras tribus, alguna deuda o mala acci贸n de alg煤n miembro.
El punto, incomprensible para Wittgenstein y Frazer, es que estos conjuros de alguna manera funcionan, de lo contrario el cham谩n ser铆a reemplazado.
驴C贸mo es posible que funcionen? Ese es el misterio.
May 5, 2024
賮賷睾賳賷卮鬲丕賷賳 賴匕丕 賷賵丕夭賷 毓賯賱 丕賷賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 .
賲賮賰乇 匕賰賷 賵 賷賮賰賰 丕賱賮賰乇丞 卮賰賱 賲丿賴卮. :D
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲丕夭 賱賰賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 匕賴賳 氐丕賮賷 賱丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘 賲丕 賲賯氐丿賴.
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賵賱賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丕禺賷乇 賱氐丕丨亘 丕毓馗賲 賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳
賲賮賰乇 匕賰賷 賵 賷賮賰賰 丕賱賮賰乇丞 卮賰賱 賲丿賴卮. :D
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲丕夭 賱賰賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 匕賴賳 氐丕賮賷 賱丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘 賲丕 賲賯氐丿賴.
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賵賱賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丕禺賷乇 賱氐丕丨亘 丕毓馗賲 賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳
November 13, 2024
Conviene leerlo con La rama dorada no solo para hacer el guay en las citas, sino tambi茅n porque comenta ese libro.
April 24, 2025
::丕賳胤亘丕毓 毓丕賲::
=========
芦廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賯丕丿乇賸丕 毓賱賶 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賲賵囟賵毓賷賸賾丕貙 賮賱丕 廿賷賲丕賳 賱賷貨 賵亘丕賱賲賯丕亘賱貙 兀賰賵賳 賲丐賲賳賸丕 賱兀賳賳賷 賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賱賾侔賴 廿丿乇丕賰賸丕 賲賵囟賵毓賷賸賾丕. 賮廿匕丕 兀乇丿鬲 兀賳 兀丨鬲賮馗 亘廿賷賲丕賳賷貙 賷賳亘睾賷 賱賷 兀賳 兀爻鬲賲乇 賮賷 丕賱賳馗乇 廿賱賷賴 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲噩毓賱賳賷 兀鬲卮亘孬 亘丕賳毓丿丕賲 丕賱賷賯賷賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷.禄 鈥� 爻賵乇賷賳 賰賷乇賰睾丕乇丿
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 亘爻亘亘 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 毓賱賶 鬲亘爻賷胤 兀賮賰丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱賳賲爻丕賵賷貙 毓賱丕賵丞 毓賱賶 鬲賯丿賷賲 卮乇丨 賲購爻賴亘 賱賰賱 賲賯丕賱丞 賲賳 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞貙 賲賲丕 噩毓賱 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲 兀賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賱賱賲丐賱賮 賳賮爻賴貙 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 噩毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯乇賷亘賸丕 賲賳 賯丕乇卅賴 丕賱毓乇亘賷. 賷氐賱丨 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賲丿禺賱 乇丕卅毓 賱毓丕賱賲 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 丕賱亘丿賷毓.
***
::賲丨鬲賵賷丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘::
============
佟- 賲丨丕囟乇丞 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯
Ludwig Wittgenstein, (1993) A Lecture on Ethics
佗- 丿乇賵爻 賮賷 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷
Wittgenstein, L. (1966) Lectures and conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief.
伲- 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 丨賵賱 "丕賱睾氐賳 丕賱匕賴亘賷 賱賮乇丕賷夭乇
Wittgenstein, L. (1979) Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough.
***
::佟- 賲丨丕囟乇丞 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯::
================
芦賴賳丕賰 禺丕氐賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞 賱爻賵亍 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱賱睾丞 鬲禺鬲乇賯 噩賲賷毓 毓亘丕乇丕鬲賳丕 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷丞.禄
廿賳 賰賱賲丕鬲賳丕貙 賰賲丕 賳爻鬲毓賲賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓賱賲貙 爻購賮購賳賹 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 睾賷乇 兀賳 鬲丨賲賱 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賱賲毓賳賶 賵鬲賳賯賱賴賲丕 - 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷賷賳. 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賲賵噩賵丿丞貙 賮廿賳賴丕 賮賵賯 胤亘賷毓賷丞貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賰賱賲丕鬲賳丕 賱丕 鬲乇賷丿 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 爻賵賶 毓賳 賵賯丕卅毓貨 賲孬賱 賰兀爻 丕賱卮丕賷 丕賱匕賷 賱賳 賷丨鬲賵賷 賲賳 丕賱賲丕亍 爻賵賶 賲丕 賷乇賱兀 賰兀爻 丕賱卮丕賷貙 賵匕賱賰 丨鬲賶 賵賱賵 爻賰亘鬲 賮賷賴 賱鬲乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱賲丕亍. 賮胤丕賱賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 丕賱兀賲乇 亘丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 賵丕賱賯囟丕賷丕貙 賮賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 爻賵賶 賯賷賲丞 賳爻亘賷丞 賵禺賷乇 賳爻亘賷 賵丨賯 賳爻亘賷貙 廿禺.
賷卮賷乇 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿賱賶 兀賳 賰賱 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賲孬賱 "噩賷丿" 賵"氐丨賷丨"貙 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲爻鬲毓賲賱 賮賷 兀丨賰丕賲 賯賷賲丞貙 賮廿賳賴丕 鬲賰賵賳 匕丕鬲 賲毓賳賷賷賳: 賲毓賳賶 毓丕丿賷 兀賵 賳爻亘賷貙 賵賲毓賳賶 兀禺賱丕賯賷 兀賵 賲胤賱賯. 廿賳 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱賳爻亘賷 賷乇鬲亘胤 丿丕卅賲賸丕 亘賵丕賯毓丞 賲賲賰賳丞: 賮毓賳丿賲丕 兀賯賵賱 "賴丕 賴賷 丕賱胤乇賷賯 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞"貙 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 卮賷亍 賷賵噩丿 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵賷賲孬賱 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍貙 兀賷 賵丕賯毓丞 賲賲賰賳丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵賱賷爻鬲 賲爻鬲丨賷賱丞. 賱匕賱賰 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱賳爻賷 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賰賱賲丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 "氐丨賷丨丞" 賲爻鬲毓賲賱丞 賴賳丕 亘賲毓賳賶 噩賷丿丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 卮賷亍 賲丕貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮賴賷 鬲锟斤拷鬲亘乇 賳爻亘賷丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賲毓賷丕乇 賲毓賷賳貙 賵賴賵 兀賳 鬲賵氐賱賳賷 廿賱賶 賴丿賮賷 賮賷 兀賯乇亘 賵賯鬲 賲賲賰賳. 兀賲丕 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯貙 毓賱賶 禺賱丕賮 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱賳爻亘賷貙 賷爻鬲毓賲賱 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賲孬賱 "禺賷乇" 賵"卮乇"貙 亘賲毓賳賶 賲胤賱賯. 賵丕賱賯賷賲丞丕賱賲胤賱賯丞 賱賷爻鬲 賯賷賲丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 卮賷亍 賲丕貙 亘賱 賴賷 賯賷賲丞 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴丕. 賴賰匕丕貙 廿賳賴丕 賲孬賱 丕賱賯賵賱 "賴丕 賴賷 丕賱胤乇賷賯 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 賯胤毓丕" 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 丕賱賴丿賮 兀賵 丕賱賵噩賴丞 兀賵 丕賱賲毓賷丕乇. 賮毓賳丿賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿賳 "丕賱禺賷乇 丕賱賲胤賱賯貙 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱賵氐賮貙 爻賷賰賵賳 丨丕賱丞賸 賷爻毓賶 賰賱 賮乇丿 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 廿賱賶 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕貙 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 兀匕賵丕賯賴 賵賲賷賵賱賴貙 兀賵 兀賳賴 爻賷卮毓乇 亘丕賱匕賳亘 賱賰賵賳賴 賱賲 賷爻毓 廿賱賶 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕"貙 賮廿賳賴 賷丐賰丿 毓賱賶 兀賳 賰賱 "丕賱賯囟丕賷丕" 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 兀丨賰丕賲 賯賷賲丞 賲胤賱賯丞 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 賰賱 丕賱毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 鬲爻鬲毓賲賱 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賲胤賱賯 賮賯胤. 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳貙 廿賳賳丕 賳賯賵賱 廿賳賴 賷噩亘 兀禺賱丕賯賷賸丕 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 賮毓賱 賰匕丕 賵賰匕丕 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 匕賱賰 噩賷丿 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴 (亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賲胤賱賯) 賵賱賷爻 賱兀賳賴 賷爻鬲噩賷亘 賱賲毓賷丕乇 賲毓賷賳. 毓賱丕賵丞 毓賱賶 匕賱賰貙 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 兀丨賰丕賲賻 賯賷賲丞賺 賲胤賱賯丞賸貙 賮廿賳 匕賱賰 賷爻鬲賱夭賲 兀賳賴 賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 "賯囟賷丞賹 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞賹" 賯囟賷丞賸 亘丕賱賮毓賱 (兀賷 賱賴丕 賲毓賳賶)貙 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷丨賷賱 丕賱丨賰賲購 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷購賾 廿賱賶 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賲賲賰賳丞 (賵丕賯毓丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞). 賵廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲賵噩丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賮賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賮賷 賵丨丿購賴丕 賱廿囟賮丕亍 賲毓賳賶 毓賱賶 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 丕賱賲胤丕亘賯 賱賴丕. 賵丕賱丨丕賱 兀賳賴 賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丨爻亘 鬲賯丿賷乇 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳賴 "賱丕 鬲賲賱賰 兀賷丞購 丨丕賱丞賽 兀卮賷丕亍 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴丕 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 兀爻賲賷賴 胤賵丕毓賷丞賸 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賯爻乇賷丞 賱丨丕賰賲 賲胤賱賯. 賵賲毓賳賶 匕賱賰 兀賳賴 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賷丞 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賮賷 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賶 兀賳 鬲亘乇乇 丕賱丕丿毓丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞 賱賱丨賰賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷貙 "賴匕丕 丕賱爻亘亘 賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 鬲賵噩丿 賯囟丕賷丕 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞".
***
::佗- 丿乇賵爻 賮賷 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷::
==================
廿匕丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賵賯丕卅毓 丿賷賳賷丞貙 賮賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丿賷賳賷丞. 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賱丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 兀賷 賲囟賲賵賳 賲毓乇賮賷貨 賮丕賱兀賲乇 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘氐賵丕亘賴丕 兀賵 禺胤卅賴丕貙 賱兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻兀賱丞 睾賷乇 賲胤亘賯丞 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨丕賱丞. 廿賳 丕賱賲賳胤賵賯丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賱丕 鬲賯丿賲 兀賷 丕丿毓丕亍 匕賷 丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賯毓賷丞 兀賵 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯. 賵亘丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞貙 賱賷爻鬲 賴賳丕賰 廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 賱賲賳丕賯囟丞 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿. 賮丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賱丕 賷鬲賲 鬲氐賳賷賮賴丕 鬲亘毓賸丕 賱丨賯賷賯鬲賴丕 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱丞 毓賱賶 囟賵亍 丕賱亘乇賴丕賳 丕賱賲購賯丿賻賾賲.
丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 亘乇丕賴賷賳 賲賳胤賯賷丞 兀賵 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賱廿孬亘丕鬲 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 兀賵 丿丨囟賴 爻賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 丕爻鬲亘毓丕丿賴丕 廿賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱禺乇丕賮丞. 賵丕賱丨丕賱 兀賳 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賱丕 賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳 丕賱丿賷賳賷賷賳 禺乇丕賮賷賷賳貙 賲丕 毓丿丕 廿匕丕 鬲毓丕賲賱賵丕 賲毓 賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲賴賲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賰賲丕 賱賵 兀賳賴丕 賲賳 賳賮爻 賳賵毓 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞. 廿賳 賲丕 賷乇賷丿 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿亘乇丕夭賴 賴賳丕 賴賵 兀賳 賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賰賲爻兀賱丞 賵丕賯毓賷丞 匕丕鬲 丿乇噩丞 賲毓賷賳丞 賲賳 丕賱賲氐丿丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱賲毓賯賵賱賷丞 鬲毓賳賷 丕賱禺賱胤 亘賷賳 丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞. 賮賲賳 丕賱禺胤兀 丕賱賮丕丿丨 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 兀賳賴 賷賲賰賳 賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賲賳胤賵賯丕鬲 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 亘賳賮爻 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丕賲賱 亘賴丕 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 丕賱賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲賻賾丨賻賯購賾賯 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 兀卮賰丕賱 兀禺乇賶 賲賳 丕賱禺胤丕亘 廿賳 丕賱賲賳胤賵賯丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞貙 丨爻亘 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳貙 睾賷乇 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賱兀賳賴 賱丕 賷賰賮賷 丨卮賵賴丕 亘丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賵丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 賰匕賱賰貙 賵賱兀賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賯丕卅賲丞 毓賱賶 兀爻亘丕亘 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賲胤賱賯賸丕. 賷噩亘 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲乇丕賮毓 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 亘丕賱丕爻鬲毓丕賳丞 亘丕賱丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 兀賵 亘賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀乇囟賷丕鬲 毓丕丿賷丞 賷賯賵賲 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱乇兀賷. 賵廿匕丕 兀賯丕賲 卮禺氐 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 毓賱賶 兀乇囟賷丕鬲 賵亘乇丕賴賷賳 賲賱丕卅賲丞 賮賯胤 賱賱賯囟丕賷丕 睾賷乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞貙 賮廿賳賴 爻賷丿賲乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 賵賷噩乇丿賴丕 賲賳 賲毓賳丕賴丕.
亘卮賷乇 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿賱賶 兀賳賴 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賱丕 賷馗賴乇貙 賮廿賳 賰賱賲丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲毓賱賲賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲亘賰乇賸丕. 賮丕賱賱賴 鬲賲孬賱賴 氐賵乇賹 賲孬賱賸丕. 廿賱丕 賲丕 鬲賲孬賱賴 氐賵乇丞 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賲噩乇丿 卮賷亍 賳丐賲賳 亘賴 (兀賷 賳毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴). 賮丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賱丕 兀賰孬乇 賵賱丕 兀賯賱. 賷賱丕丨馗 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 兀賳 賰賱賲丞 "丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿" 賲爻鬲毓賲賱丞 賴賳丕 亘賲毓賳賶 爻鬲孬賳丕卅賷 亘賲丕 兀賳賴 賷爻鬲丨賷賱 毓賱賷賳丕 廿禺囟丕毓賴丕 賱賱鬲噩乇賷亘 兀賵 丕賱毓孬賵乇 毓賱賶 賵爻丕卅賱 鬲丨乇賷亘賴丕: 廿匕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賲賯丕乇賳丞 氐賵乇丞 丕賱賱賾侔賴 兀賵 兀賷丞 氐賵乇丞 丿賷賳賷丞 兀禺乇賶 賲毓 兀賷 卮賷亍 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓. 賵賴匕丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 亘乇賴丕賳貙 亘賱 廿賳賳丕 賱丕 賳毓乇賮 鬲賯賳賷丞 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賵乇丞. 賴賰匕丕貙 賮廿賳賴 賱賷爻 亘賲賯丿賵乇賳丕 爻賵賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 兀賳賮爻賳丕 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲賻賾丨賻賯購賾賯 賲賳賴丕. 賱丕 鬲賯賵賲 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 毓賱賶 兀爻丕爻 鬲丕乇賷禺賷貙 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 匕賱賰 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱毓丕丿賷 賮賷 丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷購爻鬲禺賿丿賻賲賻 賰兀爻丕爻.
廿賳賳丕 賴賳丕 兀賲丕賲 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賺 賮賷 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮賺 毓賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賺 賮賷 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱毓丕丿賷丞. 賮囟賱賸丕 毓賳 匕賱賰貙 賴匕賴 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱丕 鬲毓丕賱噩 賰賯囟丕賷丕 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞貙 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞.
***
::毓丿賲 賯丕亘賱賷丞 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賱賱賯賷丕爻 毓賱賶 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱毓丕丿賷::
=============================
賷丿丕賮毓 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賮賷 賲賯丕胤毓 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賲賳 "丿乇賵爻賴" 毓賱賶 兀賳 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲賵賲賳 賵丕賱卮禺氐 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟丕賳 亘毓囟賴賲丕 丕賱亘毓囟. 賮丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲丐賲賳 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賵丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴 睾賷乇 賲鬲賳丕賯囟賷賳貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賷賵噩丿丕賳 賮賷 "賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 鬲賲丕賲賸丕". 賵賴匕丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱賱睾丞 睾賷乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 睾賷乇 賲鬲賯丕賷爻鬲賷賳貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳賴 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賯賷丕爻 廿丨丿丕賴賲丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賳賮爻賴丕 鬲丨賲賱 丿賱丕賱丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 丕賱禺胤丕亘 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱禺胤丕亘 睾賷乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 廿匕丕 賯丕賱 卮禺氐 賲鬲丿賷賳 廿賳 (爻) 賴賷 (氐) 賵賯丕賱 卮禺氐 睾賷乇 賲鬲丿賷賳 廿賳 (爻) 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 (氐)貙 賮廿賳賴賲丕 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟丕賳 亘毓囟賴賲丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賲丕 丿丕賲鬲 毓亘丕乇丞 "賴賷 (氐)" 賲爻鬲毓賲賱丞 賮賷 丕賱毓亘丕乇鬲賷賳 亘賲毓丕賳賷 賲禺鬲賱賮丞.
賱賳爻鬲毓丿 賴賳丕 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿賲賴丕 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賮賷 "丿乇賵爻賴" 丨賵賱 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賮賴賲 亘丕賱賲賳丕賯囟丞: 廿匕丕 賯丕賱 卮禺氐 (兀): "兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱噩爻丿 爻賵賮 賷亘毓孬 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲"貙 賵乇丿 毓賱賷賴 卮禺氐 丌禺乇 (亘): "兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱噩爻丿 賱賳 賷亘毓孬 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲"貙 賮廿賳 丕賱卮禺氐賷賳 賮賴賲丕 賲毓丕 賳賮爻 丕賱賯囟賷丞 ("兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱噩爻丿 爻賵賮 賷亘毓孬 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲")貨 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮廿賳 賱賴賲丕 賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵賯賮 丕賱賯囟賵賷 賱賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿貨 賱賰賳 (兀) 賷賳賰乇 丕賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賷賷賳賰乇賴丕 (亘). 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賳爻鬲賳鬲噩 兀賳賴賲丕 賱賲 賷禺胤卅丕 賮賷 氐賷丕睾丞 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賴賲丕 丨賵賱 亘毓孬 丕賱兀噩爻丕丿 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲. 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨丕賱丞貙 賳卮毓乇 亘丕賱丕乇鬲賷丕丨 賵賳丨賳 賳賱丕丨馗 賲毓丕賷賷乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 鬲鬲毓賱賯 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮廿賳 賱賳爻亘賷丞 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 賲氐丿丕賯賷丞 賰亘賷乇丞.
賱賰賳 賮賷 丨丕賱丕鬲 兀禺乇賶貙 賷氐毓亘 毓賱賷賳丕 鬲兀亘賷丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞. 丕賮乇囟 兀賳 (兀) 賯丕賱:
"125-5768"貙 賵兀賳 (亘) 賯丕賱: "5 -57+68". 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨丕賱丞貙 賱賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀睾賱亘賳丕 匕賱賰 賲噩乇丿 睾賷丕亘 丕鬲賮丕賯. 賮廿匕丕 賰丕賳 (亘) 賷賯氐丿 亘毓賱丕賲丞 (+) 毓賲賱賷丞 丕賱噩賲毓貙 賮廿賳 丕賱賲賳丕賯囟丞 賯丕卅賲丞. 賱賰賳 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賷賯氐丿 亘賴丕 毓賲賱賷丞 丨爻丕亘賷丞 兀禺乇賶貙 賮廿賳賴 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟 (兀).
廿賳 賳馗乇丞 丕賱卮禺氐賷賳貙 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賵丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴貙 賳賰卮賮丕賳 毓賳 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 兀毓賲賯 賲賳 賲噩乇丿 毓丿賲 丕鬲賮丕賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳 丨賵賱 丨賯賷賯丞 亘毓囟 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 兀賵 禺胤卅賴丕貨 廿賳賴賲丕 亘丕賱兀丨乇賶 毓丕噩夭丕賳 毓賳 兀賳 賷賯賵賱丕 賱亘毓囟賴賲丕 賳賮爻 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳賴賲丕 賷賱毓亘丕賳 賱毓亘鬲賷賳 賱睾賵賷鬲賷賳 賲禺鬲賱賮鬲賷賳.
賮丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賮爻乇 賲氐丕卅亘賴 亘丕賱毓賯丕亘 丕賱廿賱賴賷 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賷賮爻乇賴丕 賰匕賱賰 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賴匕丕 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘兀賷丞 賵丕賯毓丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 氐丕丿賯賸丕 兀賵 禺丕胤卅賸丕. 賮毓賳丿賲丕 爻卅賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 毓賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 兀賵 賱丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賰賲丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱賲鬲丿賷賳賵賳貙 兀噩丕亘 亘丕賱賳賮賷 賲爻鬲丿賱賸丕 毓賱賶 賲賵賯賮賴 亘賰賵賳 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲鬲丿賷賳 賱賳 賷氐丿賯 兀亘丿賸丕 賲丕 賷氐賮賴. 廿賳 賲丕 賷賯氐丿賴 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 亘賯賵賱賴 廿賳賴 賱賳 賷噩丕丿賱 賮賷 丕丿毓丕亍 丕賱賲丐賲賳 賴賵 賲丕 賷賱賷:
兀賳 鬲丿丨囟 賲賳胤賵賯賸丕 賲丕貙 賲孬賱丕 (氐)貙 賲毓賳丕賴 兀賳 鬲賯賵賱 (賱丕-氐). 賱賰賳 亘賲丕 兀賳 丕丿毓丕亍 (賱丕爻氐) 賷毓賳賷 丕丿毓丕亍 賵丕賯毓丞 賲丕貙 賮廿賳 匕賱賰 賷爻鬲賱夭賲 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 (氐) 賳賮爻賴 賵丕賯毓丞 兀賷囟賸丕. 賵賲丕丿丕賲 (氐) 賱賷爻 賵丕賯毓丞貙 賮賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 (賱丕-氐) 氐丨賷丨賸丕.
***
::伲- 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 丨賵賱 丕賱睾氐賳 丕賱匕賴亘賷 賱賮乇丕賷夭乇::
=========================
丕毓鬲亘丕乇 丕賱胤賯賵爻 賱賱亘丿丕卅賷賷賳 賰卮賰賱 賱睾賵賷 賷囟毓 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賵乇 丨丿賸丕 賱賲卮乇賵毓 丕賱鬲賳馗賷乇 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯 亘"丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞". 廿賳 丕賱賵囟賵丨 賷丨賵賱 丿賵賳 毓丿賲 賮賴賲 賲鬲爻丕賴賱賺 賵賷賳賴賷 毓丿丿賸丕 賰亘賷乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 噩丿賵賶 賲賳賴丕"
賷賮囟賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱爻賱賵賰丕鬲 丕賱胤賯賵爻賷丞 丕賳胤賱丕賯賸丕 賲賳 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇貙 匕賱賰 兀賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 "丕賱胤賯賵爻賷丞" 鬲禺鬲賱賮 毓賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲
"丕賱毓賲賱賷丞" 賵丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 亘賰賵賳賴丕 鬲鬲囟賲賳貙 兀賵 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲鬲囟賲賳貙 禺丕氐賷丞 鬲毓亘賷乇賷丞貙 乇賲夭賷丞貙 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 兀賵 丕賱賳卮丕胤 丕賱鬲賯賳賷賷賳. 賵賷亘丿賵 兀賳 賮乇丕賷夭乇 賷噩賴賱 賰賱 卮賷亍 毓賳 賵馗丕卅賮 丕賱乇賲夭. 賱賴匕丕 丕賱爻亘亘 乇兀賶 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 兀賳 賳毓鬲 賮乇丕賷夭乇 賱"丕賱賲鬲賵丨卮賷賳 亘丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱氐亘賷丕賳賷丞 賷賳賯賱亘 毓賱賷賴.
***
賮丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賷賯賷賲 禺丕乇噩 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱貙 賱賰賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賱毓賯賱 兀賳 賷丿乇賰 兀賳 賱賴 丨丿賵丿賸丕. 賱賯丿 賰丕賳 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賷毓丕乇囟 賰賱 賱丕賴賵鬲 毓賯賱丕賳賷 賵賰賱 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賷乇賮囟 乇賮囟賸丕 噩匕乇賷賸丕 兀賷丞 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱鬲亘乇賷乇 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 亘丕賱賲毓胤賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 兀賵 毓賱賲賷丞. 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 丿賮毓 賰乇賷爻鬲賷丕賳 卮賵賮賷乇賷 廿賱賶 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 兀賳賴 兀賯乇亘 廿賱賶 賲亘丿兀 兀賵睾爻胤賷賳 丕賱賯丕卅賱 "兀賵賲賳 亘匕賱賰 賱兀賳賴 毓亘孬賷" 賲賳 賲亘丿兀 兀賳爻賷賱賲 丕賱賯丕卅賱 "兀賵賲賳貙 賱匕賱賰 賷賲賰賳 賱賷 兀賳 兀賮賴賲 ". 賵毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱兀爻丕爻貙 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 兀賳 廿賯丕賲丞 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 毓賱賶 丕賱亘乇丕賴賷賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵丨丿賴丕 "丨賲丕賯丞 禺丕賱氐丞"貨 賱匕丕 鬲賲丕 兀賳 丕賱亘乇賴丕賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱廿賷賲丕賳貙 賮廿賳 廿馗賴丕乇 禺胤兀 "丕賱賲囟丕賲賷賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賱兀賳丕噩賷賱" 賱丕 賷賯賱賱 賲賳 賯賷賲丞 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳. 賵廿賳 賲丕 賷噩毓賱 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賲賯丿爻 氐丕丿賯賸丕 賴賵 賮賯胤 賰賵賳 丕賳賳丕爻 鬲賻賱賻賯賾賵賴 亘廿賷賲丕賳 (賷毓賳賷 亘丨亘). 賮丕賱賲丐賲賳 賱丕 賷賯賷賲 賲毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賳賮爻 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳賯賷賲賴丕 毓丕丿丞 賲毓 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 兀賵 賲毓 兀丨丿 賲匕丕賴亘 "丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞".
***
賷丐賰丿 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 毓賱賶 兀賳 睾賷丕亘 丕賱賲毓賳賶 賴賵 賲丕 賷卮賰賱 噩賵賴乇 丕賱毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 亘賲丕 兀賳賴丕 鬲鬲噩丕賵夭 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丨丿賵丿 丕賱賱睾丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賳賶. 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 兀賵 丕賱賰賱丕賲 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 鬲氐胤丿賲 亘丨丿賵丿 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵賴賵 兀賲乇 賷乇賮囟賴 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賲胤賱賯賸丕. 賲孬賱丕賸貙 廿賳 丕賱賯囟賷丞 "夭賷丕丿 賷氐丿乇 丨賰賲賸丕 亘兀賳 丕賱賯賲乇 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 丕賱兀乇囟" 賱賴丕 賲毓賳賶 賵氐丕丿賯丞 (廿匕丕 賳胤賯 亘賴丕 夭賷丕丿 亘丕賱賮毓賱) 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 毓亘丕乇丞 "丕賱賯賲乇 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 丕賱卮賲爻" 鬲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 丕賱賲賲賰賳丞 丕賱賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 兀賳 丕賱賯賲乇 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 丕賱卮賲爻. 賵丕賱丌賳貙 賱賳鬲兀賲賱 賲孬丕賱丕 丌禺乇: "丕賱賯囟賷丞" 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 "夭賷丕丿 賷氐丿乇 丨賰賲賸丕 亘兀賳 丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞". 廿賳 賴匕丕 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 爻賷賰賵賳 兀賷囟賸丕 匕丕 賲毓賳賶 賮賯胤 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 "丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞" 賵丕賯毓丞 賲賲賰賳丞 兀賵 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍貙 賵廿賱丕 賮廿賳賴丕 爻鬲賰賵賳 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 亘賱丕 賲毓賳賶. 賷賰卮賮 鬲丨賱賷賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賱賱兀丨賰丕賲 兀賳賴 賱賰賷 賷賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱丨賰賲 兀禺賱丕賯賷 (賲孬賱 "夭賷丕丿 賷氐丿乇 丨賰賲賸丕 亘兀賳 丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞")貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱賰賷 賷賰賵賳 賯囟賷丞貙 賷噩亘 毓賱賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 丕賱丨賰賲 (賲孬賱賸丕貙 "丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞") 兀賳 鬲丨賷賱 廿賱賶 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賲賲賰賳丞. 賮賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賯囟丕賷丕 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 賵賯丕卅毓 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賲賲賰賳丞.
*.*.*.*.*.*
=========
芦廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賯丕丿乇賸丕 毓賱賶 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賲賵囟賵毓賷賸賾丕貙 賮賱丕 廿賷賲丕賳 賱賷貨 賵亘丕賱賲賯丕亘賱貙 兀賰賵賳 賲丐賲賳賸丕 賱兀賳賳賷 賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱賱賾侔賴 廿丿乇丕賰賸丕 賲賵囟賵毓賷賸賾丕. 賮廿匕丕 兀乇丿鬲 兀賳 兀丨鬲賮馗 亘廿賷賲丕賳賷貙 賷賳亘睾賷 賱賷 兀賳 兀爻鬲賲乇 賮賷 丕賱賳馗乇 廿賱賷賴 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲噩毓賱賳賷 兀鬲卮亘孬 亘丕賳毓丿丕賲 丕賱賷賯賷賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷.禄 鈥� 爻賵乇賷賳 賰賷乇賰睾丕乇丿
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 亘爻亘亘 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 毓賱賶 鬲亘爻賷胤 兀賮賰丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱賳賲爻丕賵賷貙 毓賱丕賵丞 毓賱賶 鬲賯丿賷賲 卮乇丨 賲購爻賴亘 賱賰賱 賲賯丕賱丞 賲賳 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞貙 賲賲丕 噩毓賱 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲 兀賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賱賱賲丐賱賮 賳賮爻賴貙 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 噩毓賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯乇賷亘賸丕 賲賳 賯丕乇卅賴 丕賱毓乇亘賷. 賷氐賱丨 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賲丿禺賱 乇丕卅毓 賱毓丕賱賲 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 丕賱亘丿賷毓.
***
::賲丨鬲賵賷丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘::
============
佟- 賲丨丕囟乇丞 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯
Ludwig Wittgenstein, (1993) A Lecture on Ethics
佗- 丿乇賵爻 賮賷 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷
Wittgenstein, L. (1966) Lectures and conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief.
伲- 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 丨賵賱 "丕賱睾氐賳 丕賱匕賴亘賷 賱賮乇丕賷夭乇
Wittgenstein, L. (1979) Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough.
***
::佟- 賲丨丕囟乇丞 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯::
================
芦賴賳丕賰 禺丕氐賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞 賱爻賵亍 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱賱睾丞 鬲禺鬲乇賯 噩賲賷毓 毓亘丕乇丕鬲賳丕 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷丞.禄
廿賳 賰賱賲丕鬲賳丕貙 賰賲丕 賳爻鬲毓賲賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓賱賲貙 爻購賮購賳賹 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 睾賷乇 兀賳 鬲丨賲賱 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賱賲毓賳賶 賵鬲賳賯賱賴賲丕 - 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷賷賳. 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賲賵噩賵丿丞貙 賮廿賳賴丕 賮賵賯 胤亘賷毓賷丞貙 亘賷賳賲丕 賰賱賲丕鬲賳丕 賱丕 鬲乇賷丿 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 爻賵賶 毓賳 賵賯丕卅毓貨 賲孬賱 賰兀爻 丕賱卮丕賷 丕賱匕賷 賱賳 賷丨鬲賵賷 賲賳 丕賱賲丕亍 爻賵賶 賲丕 賷乇賱兀 賰兀爻 丕賱卮丕賷貙 賵匕賱賰 丨鬲賶 賵賱賵 爻賰亘鬲 賮賷賴 賱鬲乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱賲丕亍. 賮胤丕賱賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 丕賱兀賲乇 亘丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 賵丕賱賯囟丕賷丕貙 賮賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 爻賵賶 賯賷賲丞 賳爻亘賷丞 賵禺賷乇 賳爻亘賷 賵丨賯 賳爻亘賷貙 廿禺.
賷卮賷乇 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿賱賶 兀賳 賰賱 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賲孬賱 "噩賷丿" 賵"氐丨賷丨"貙 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲爻鬲毓賲賱 賮賷 兀丨賰丕賲 賯賷賲丞貙 賮廿賳賴丕 鬲賰賵賳 匕丕鬲 賲毓賳賷賷賳: 賲毓賳賶 毓丕丿賷 兀賵 賳爻亘賷貙 賵賲毓賳賶 兀禺賱丕賯賷 兀賵 賲胤賱賯. 廿賳 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱賳爻亘賷 賷乇鬲亘胤 丿丕卅賲賸丕 亘賵丕賯毓丞 賲賲賰賳丞: 賮毓賳丿賲丕 兀賯賵賱 "賴丕 賴賷 丕賱胤乇賷賯 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞"貙 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 卮賷亍 賷賵噩丿 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵賷賲孬賱 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍貙 兀賷 賵丕賯毓丞 賲賲賰賳丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵賱賷爻鬲 賲爻鬲丨賷賱丞. 賱匕賱賰 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱賳爻賷 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賰賱賲丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 "氐丨賷丨丞" 賲爻鬲毓賲賱丞 賴賳丕 亘賲毓賳賶 噩賷丿丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 卮賷亍 賲丕貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮賴賷 鬲锟斤拷鬲亘乇 賳爻亘賷丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賲毓賷丕乇 賲毓賷賳貙 賵賴賵 兀賳 鬲賵氐賱賳賷 廿賱賶 賴丿賮賷 賮賷 兀賯乇亘 賵賯鬲 賲賲賰賳. 兀賲丕 丨賰賲 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯貙 毓賱賶 禺賱丕賮 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱賳爻亘賷貙 賷爻鬲毓賲賱 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賲孬賱 "禺賷乇" 賵"卮乇"貙 亘賲毓賳賶 賲胤賱賯. 賵丕賱賯賷賲丞丕賱賲胤賱賯丞 賱賷爻鬲 賯賷賲丞 賲賳 兀噩賱 卮賷亍 賲丕貙 亘賱 賴賷 賯賷賲丞 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴丕. 賴賰匕丕貙 廿賳賴丕 賲孬賱 丕賱賯賵賱 "賴丕 賴賷 丕賱胤乇賷賯 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 賯胤毓丕" 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 丕賱賴丿賮 兀賵 丕賱賵噩賴丞 兀賵 丕賱賲毓賷丕乇. 賮毓賳丿賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿賳 "丕賱禺賷乇 丕賱賲胤賱賯貙 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱賵氐賮貙 爻賷賰賵賳 丨丕賱丞賸 賷爻毓賶 賰賱 賮乇丿 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 廿賱賶 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕貙 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 兀匕賵丕賯賴 賵賲賷賵賱賴貙 兀賵 兀賳賴 爻賷卮毓乇 亘丕賱匕賳亘 賱賰賵賳賴 賱賲 賷爻毓 廿賱賶 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕"貙 賮廿賳賴 賷丐賰丿 毓賱賶 兀賳 賰賱 "丕賱賯囟丕賷丕" 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 兀丨賰丕賲 賯賷賲丞 賲胤賱賯丞 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 賰賱 丕賱毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 鬲爻鬲毓賲賱 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賲胤賱賯 賮賯胤. 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳貙 廿賳賳丕 賳賯賵賱 廿賳賴 賷噩亘 兀禺賱丕賯賷賸丕 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 賮毓賱 賰匕丕 賵賰匕丕 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 匕賱賰 噩賷丿 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴 (亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賲胤賱賯) 賵賱賷爻 賱兀賳賴 賷爻鬲噩賷亘 賱賲毓賷丕乇 賲毓賷賳. 毓賱丕賵丞 毓賱賶 匕賱賰貙 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 兀丨賰丕賲賻 賯賷賲丞賺 賲胤賱賯丞賸貙 賮廿賳 匕賱賰 賷爻鬲賱夭賲 兀賳賴 賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 "賯囟賷丞賹 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞賹" 賯囟賷丞賸 亘丕賱賮毓賱 (兀賷 賱賴丕 賲毓賳賶)貙 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷丨賷賱 丕賱丨賰賲購 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷購賾 廿賱賶 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賲賲賰賳丞 (賵丕賯毓丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞). 賵廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲賵噩丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賮賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賮賷 賵丨丿購賴丕 賱廿囟賮丕亍 賲毓賳賶 毓賱賶 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 丕賱賲胤丕亘賯 賱賴丕. 賵丕賱丨丕賱 兀賳賴 賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 丨爻亘 鬲賯丿賷乇 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳賴 "賱丕 鬲賲賱賰 兀賷丞購 丨丕賱丞賽 兀卮賷丕亍 賮賷 匕丕鬲賴丕 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 兀爻賲賷賴 胤賵丕毓賷丞賸 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賯爻乇賷丞 賱丨丕賰賲 賲胤賱賯. 賵賲毓賳賶 匕賱賰 兀賳賴 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賷丞 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賮賷 丕賱賲噩丕賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賶 兀賳 鬲亘乇乇 丕賱丕丿毓丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞 賱賱丨賰賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷貙 "賴匕丕 丕賱爻亘亘 賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 鬲賵噩丿 賯囟丕賷丕 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞".
***
::佗- 丿乇賵爻 賮賷 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷::
==================
廿匕丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賴賳丕賰 賵賯丕卅毓 丿賷賳賷丞貙 賮賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丿賷賳賷丞. 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賱丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 兀賷 賲囟賲賵賳 賲毓乇賮賷貨 賮丕賱兀賲乇 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘氐賵丕亘賴丕 兀賵 禺胤卅賴丕貙 賱兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻兀賱丞 睾賷乇 賲胤亘賯丞 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨丕賱丞. 廿賳 丕賱賲賳胤賵賯丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賱丕 鬲賯丿賲 兀賷 丕丿毓丕亍 匕賷 丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賯毓賷丞 兀賵 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯. 賵亘丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞貙 賱賷爻鬲 賴賳丕賰 廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 賱賲賳丕賯囟丞 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿. 賮丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賱丕 賷鬲賲 鬲氐賳賷賮賴丕 鬲亘毓賸丕 賱丨賯賷賯鬲賴丕 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱丞 毓賱賶 囟賵亍 丕賱亘乇賴丕賳 丕賱賲購賯丿賻賾賲.
丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 亘乇丕賴賷賳 賲賳胤賯賷丞 兀賵 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賱廿孬亘丕鬲 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 兀賵 丿丨囟賴 爻賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 丕爻鬲亘毓丕丿賴丕 廿賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱禺乇丕賮丞. 賵丕賱丨丕賱 兀賳 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賱丕 賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳 丕賱丿賷賳賷賷賳 禺乇丕賮賷賷賳貙 賲丕 毓丿丕 廿匕丕 鬲毓丕賲賱賵丕 賲毓 賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲賴賲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賰賲丕 賱賵 兀賳賴丕 賲賳 賳賮爻 賳賵毓 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞. 廿賳 賲丕 賷乇賷丿 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿亘乇丕夭賴 賴賳丕 賴賵 兀賳 賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賰賲爻兀賱丞 賵丕賯毓賷丞 匕丕鬲 丿乇噩丞 賲毓賷賳丞 賲賳 丕賱賲氐丿丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱賲毓賯賵賱賷丞 鬲毓賳賷 丕賱禺賱胤 亘賷賳 丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞. 賮賲賳 丕賱禺胤兀 丕賱賮丕丿丨 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 兀賳賴 賷賲賰賳 賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賲賳胤賵賯丕鬲 丿丕禺賱 丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 亘賳賮爻 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丕賲賱 亘賴丕 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 丕賱賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲賻賾丨賻賯購賾賯 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 兀卮賰丕賱 兀禺乇賶 賲賳 丕賱禺胤丕亘 廿賳 丕賱賲賳胤賵賯丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞貙 丨爻亘 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳貙 睾賷乇 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賱兀賳賴 賱丕 賷賰賮賷 丨卮賵賴丕 亘丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賵丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 賰匕賱賰貙 賵賱兀賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賯丕卅賲丞 毓賱賶 兀爻亘丕亘 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賲胤賱賯賸丕. 賷噩亘 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲乇丕賮毓 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 亘丕賱丕爻鬲毓丕賳丞 亘丕賱丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 兀賵 亘賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀乇囟賷丕鬲 毓丕丿賷丞 賷賯賵賲 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱乇兀賷. 賵廿匕丕 兀賯丕賲 卮禺氐 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 毓賱賶 兀乇囟賷丕鬲 賵亘乇丕賴賷賳 賲賱丕卅賲丞 賮賯胤 賱賱賯囟丕賷丕 睾賷乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞貙 賮廿賳賴 爻賷丿賲乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 賵賷噩乇丿賴丕 賲賳 賲毓賳丕賴丕.
亘卮賷乇 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 廿賱賶 兀賳賴 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賱丕 賷馗賴乇貙 賮廿賳 賰賱賲丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 丕賱賰賱賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲毓賱賲賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲亘賰乇賸丕. 賮丕賱賱賴 鬲賲孬賱賴 氐賵乇賹 賲孬賱賸丕. 廿賱丕 賲丕 鬲賲孬賱賴 氐賵乇丞 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賲噩乇丿 卮賷亍 賳丐賲賳 亘賴 (兀賷 賳毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴). 賮丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賾侔賴 賱丕 兀賰孬乇 賵賱丕 兀賯賱. 賷賱丕丨馗 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 兀賳 賰賱賲丞 "丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿" 賲爻鬲毓賲賱丞 賴賳丕 亘賲毓賳賶 爻鬲孬賳丕卅賷 亘賲丕 兀賳賴 賷爻鬲丨賷賱 毓賱賷賳丕 廿禺囟丕毓賴丕 賱賱鬲噩乇賷亘 兀賵 丕賱毓孬賵乇 毓賱賶 賵爻丕卅賱 鬲丨乇賷亘賴丕: 廿匕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賲賯丕乇賳丞 氐賵乇丞 丕賱賱賾侔賴 兀賵 兀賷丞 氐賵乇丞 丿賷賳賷丞 兀禺乇賶 賲毓 兀賷 卮賷亍 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓. 賵賴匕丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 亘乇賴丕賳貙 亘賱 廿賳賳丕 賱丕 賳毓乇賮 鬲賯賳賷丞 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賵乇丞. 賴賰匕丕貙 賮廿賳賴 賱賷爻 亘賲賯丿賵乇賳丕 爻賵賶 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 兀賳賮爻賳丕 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲賻賾丨賻賯購賾賯 賲賳賴丕. 賱丕 鬲賯賵賲 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 毓賱賶 兀爻丕爻 鬲丕乇賷禺賷貙 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 匕賱賰 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱毓丕丿賷 賮賷 丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷購爻鬲禺賿丿賻賲賻 賰兀爻丕爻.
廿賳賳丕 賴賳丕 兀賲丕賲 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賺 賮賷 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮賺 毓賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賺 賮賷 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱毓丕丿賷丞. 賮囟賱賸丕 毓賳 匕賱賰貙 賴匕賴 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱丕 鬲毓丕賱噩 賰賯囟丕賷丕 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞貙 鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞.
***
::毓丿賲 賯丕亘賱賷丞 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賱賱賯賷丕爻 毓賱賶 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱毓丕丿賷::
=============================
賷丿丕賮毓 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賮賷 賲賯丕胤毓 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賲賳 "丿乇賵爻賴" 毓賱賶 兀賳 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲賵賲賳 賵丕賱卮禺氐 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟丕賳 亘毓囟賴賲丕 丕賱亘毓囟. 賮丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲丐賲賳 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賵丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴 睾賷乇 賲鬲賳丕賯囟賷賳貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賷賵噩丿丕賳 賮賷 "賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 鬲賲丕賲賸丕". 賵賴匕丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱賱睾丞 睾賷乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 睾賷乇 賲鬲賯丕賷爻鬲賷賳貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳賴 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賯賷丕爻 廿丨丿丕賴賲丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賳賮爻賴丕 鬲丨賲賱 丿賱丕賱丕鬲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 丕賱禺胤丕亘 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱禺胤丕亘 睾賷乇 丕賱丿賷賳賷貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 廿匕丕 賯丕賱 卮禺氐 賲鬲丿賷賳 廿賳 (爻) 賴賷 (氐) 賵賯丕賱 卮禺氐 睾賷乇 賲鬲丿賷賳 廿賳 (爻) 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 (氐)貙 賮廿賳賴賲丕 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟丕賳 亘毓囟賴賲丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賲丕 丿丕賲鬲 毓亘丕乇丞 "賴賷 (氐)" 賲爻鬲毓賲賱丞 賮賷 丕賱毓亘丕乇鬲賷賳 亘賲毓丕賳賷 賲禺鬲賱賮丞.
賱賳爻鬲毓丿 賴賳丕 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿賲賴丕 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賮賷 "丿乇賵爻賴" 丨賵賱 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賮賴賲 亘丕賱賲賳丕賯囟丞: 廿匕丕 賯丕賱 卮禺氐 (兀): "兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱噩爻丿 爻賵賮 賷亘毓孬 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲"貙 賵乇丿 毓賱賷賴 卮禺氐 丌禺乇 (亘): "兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱噩爻丿 賱賳 賷亘毓孬 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲"貙 賮廿賳 丕賱卮禺氐賷賳 賮賴賲丕 賲毓丕 賳賮爻 丕賱賯囟賷丞 ("兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱噩爻丿 爻賵賮 賷亘毓孬 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲")貨 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮廿賳 賱賴賲丕 賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵賯賮 丕賱賯囟賵賷 賱賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿貨 賱賰賳 (兀) 賷賳賰乇 丕賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賷賷賳賰乇賴丕 (亘). 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賳爻鬲賳鬲噩 兀賳賴賲丕 賱賲 賷禺胤卅丕 賮賷 氐賷丕睾丞 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賴賲丕 丨賵賱 亘毓孬 丕賱兀噩爻丕丿 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲. 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨丕賱丞貙 賳卮毓乇 亘丕賱丕乇鬲賷丕丨 賵賳丨賳 賳賱丕丨馗 賲毓丕賷賷乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 鬲鬲毓賱賯 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賮廿賳 賱賳爻亘賷丞 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 賲氐丿丕賯賷丞 賰亘賷乇丞.
賱賰賳 賮賷 丨丕賱丕鬲 兀禺乇賶貙 賷氐毓亘 毓賱賷賳丕 鬲兀亘賷丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞. 丕賮乇囟 兀賳 (兀) 賯丕賱:
"125-5768"貙 賵兀賳 (亘) 賯丕賱: "5 -57+68". 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨丕賱丞貙 賱賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀睾賱亘賳丕 匕賱賰 賲噩乇丿 睾賷丕亘 丕鬲賮丕賯. 賮廿匕丕 賰丕賳 (亘) 賷賯氐丿 亘毓賱丕賲丞 (+) 毓賲賱賷丞 丕賱噩賲毓貙 賮廿賳 丕賱賲賳丕賯囟丞 賯丕卅賲丞. 賱賰賳 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賷賯氐丿 亘賴丕 毓賲賱賷丞 丨爻丕亘賷丞 兀禺乇賶貙 賮廿賳賴 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟 (兀).
廿賳 賳馗乇丞 丕賱卮禺氐賷賳貙 丕賱匕賷 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賵丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴貙 賳賰卮賮丕賳 毓賳 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 兀毓賲賯 賲賳 賲噩乇丿 毓丿賲 丕鬲賮丕賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳 丨賵賱 丨賯賷賯丞 亘毓囟 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 兀賵 禺胤卅賴丕貨 廿賳賴賲丕 亘丕賱兀丨乇賶 毓丕噩夭丕賳 毓賳 兀賳 賷賯賵賱丕 賱亘毓囟賴賲丕 賳賮爻 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳賴賲丕 賷賱毓亘丕賳 賱毓亘鬲賷賳 賱睾賵賷鬲賷賳 賲禺鬲賱賮鬲賷賳.
賮丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賮爻乇 賲氐丕卅亘賴 亘丕賱毓賯丕亘 丕賱廿賱賴賷 賱丕 賷賳丕賯囟 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賷賮爻乇賴丕 賰匕賱賰 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賴匕丕 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘兀賷丞 賵丕賯毓丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 氐丕丿賯賸丕 兀賵 禺丕胤卅賸丕. 賮毓賳丿賲丕 爻卅賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 毓賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 兀賵 賱丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷 賷賵賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲丞 賰賲丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮賷賴 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱賲鬲丿賷賳賵賳貙 兀噩丕亘 亘丕賱賳賮賷 賲爻鬲丿賱賸丕 毓賱賶 賲賵賯賮賴 亘賰賵賳 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲鬲丿賷賳 賱賳 賷氐丿賯 兀亘丿賸丕 賲丕 賷氐賮賴. 廿賳 賲丕 賷賯氐丿賴 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 亘賯賵賱賴 廿賳賴 賱賳 賷噩丕丿賱 賮賷 丕丿毓丕亍 丕賱賲丐賲賳 賴賵 賲丕 賷賱賷:
兀賳 鬲丿丨囟 賲賳胤賵賯賸丕 賲丕貙 賲孬賱丕 (氐)貙 賲毓賳丕賴 兀賳 鬲賯賵賱 (賱丕-氐). 賱賰賳 亘賲丕 兀賳 丕丿毓丕亍 (賱丕爻氐) 賷毓賳賷 丕丿毓丕亍 賵丕賯毓丞 賲丕貙 賮廿賳 匕賱賰 賷爻鬲賱夭賲 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 (氐) 賳賮爻賴 賵丕賯毓丞 兀賷囟賸丕. 賵賲丕丿丕賲 (氐) 賱賷爻 賵丕賯毓丞貙 賮賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 (賱丕-氐) 氐丨賷丨賸丕.
***
::伲- 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 丨賵賱 丕賱睾氐賳 丕賱匕賴亘賷 賱賮乇丕賷夭乇::
=========================
丕毓鬲亘丕乇 丕賱胤賯賵爻 賱賱亘丿丕卅賷賷賳 賰卮賰賱 賱睾賵賷 賷囟毓 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賵乇 丨丿賸丕 賱賲卮乇賵毓 丕賱鬲賳馗賷乇 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯 亘"丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞". 廿賳 丕賱賵囟賵丨 賷丨賵賱 丿賵賳 毓丿賲 賮賴賲 賲鬲爻丕賴賱賺 賵賷賳賴賷 毓丿丿賸丕 賰亘賷乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 噩丿賵賶 賲賳賴丕"
賷賮囟賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱爻賱賵賰丕鬲 丕賱胤賯賵爻賷丞 丕賳胤賱丕賯賸丕 賲賳 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賵丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇貙 匕賱賰 兀賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 "丕賱胤賯賵爻賷丞" 鬲禺鬲賱賮 毓賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲
"丕賱毓賲賱賷丞" 賵丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 亘賰賵賳賴丕 鬲鬲囟賲賳貙 兀賵 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲鬲囟賲賳貙 禺丕氐賷丞 鬲毓亘賷乇賷丞貙 乇賲夭賷丞貙 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 兀賵 丕賱賳卮丕胤 丕賱鬲賯賳賷賷賳. 賵賷亘丿賵 兀賳 賮乇丕賷夭乇 賷噩賴賱 賰賱 卮賷亍 毓賳 賵馗丕卅賮 丕賱乇賲夭. 賱賴匕丕 丕賱爻亘亘 乇兀賶 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 兀賳 賳毓鬲 賮乇丕賷夭乇 賱"丕賱賲鬲賵丨卮賷賳 亘丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱氐亘賷丕賳賷丞 賷賳賯賱亘 毓賱賷賴.
***
賮丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賷賯賷賲 禺丕乇噩 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓賯賱貙 賱賰賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賱毓賯賱 兀賳 賷丿乇賰 兀賳 賱賴 丨丿賵丿賸丕. 賱賯丿 賰丕賳 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賷毓丕乇囟 賰賱 賱丕賴賵鬲 毓賯賱丕賳賷 賵賰賱 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賷乇賮囟 乇賮囟賸丕 噩匕乇賷賸丕 兀賷丞 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱鬲亘乇賷乇 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 亘丕賱賲毓胤賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 兀賵 毓賱賲賷丞. 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 丿賮毓 賰乇賷爻鬲賷丕賳 卮賵賮賷乇賷 廿賱賶 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 兀賳賴 兀賯乇亘 廿賱賶 賲亘丿兀 兀賵睾爻胤賷賳 丕賱賯丕卅賱 "兀賵賲賳 亘匕賱賰 賱兀賳賴 毓亘孬賷" 賲賳 賲亘丿兀 兀賳爻賷賱賲 丕賱賯丕卅賱 "兀賵賲賳貙 賱匕賱賰 賷賲賰賳 賱賷 兀賳 兀賮賴賲 ". 賵毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱兀爻丕爻貙 賷毓鬲賯丿 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 兀賳 廿賯丕賲丞 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱丿賷賳賷 毓賱賶 丕賱亘乇丕賴賷賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵丨丿賴丕 "丨賲丕賯丞 禺丕賱氐丞"貨 賱匕丕 鬲賲丕 兀賳 丕賱亘乇賴丕賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱廿賷賲丕賳貙 賮廿賳 廿馗賴丕乇 禺胤兀 "丕賱賲囟丕賲賷賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賱兀賳丕噩賷賱" 賱丕 賷賯賱賱 賲賳 賯賷賲丞 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳. 賵廿賳 賲丕 賷噩毓賱 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賲賯丿爻 氐丕丿賯賸丕 賴賵 賮賯胤 賰賵賳 丕賳賳丕爻 鬲賻賱賻賯賾賵賴 亘廿賷賲丕賳 (賷毓賳賷 亘丨亘). 賮丕賱賲丐賲賳 賱丕 賷賯賷賲 賲毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賳賮爻 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳賯賷賲賴丕 毓丕丿丞 賲毓 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 兀賵 賲毓 兀丨丿 賲匕丕賴亘 "丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞".
***
賷丐賰丿 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 毓賱賶 兀賳 睾賷丕亘 丕賱賲毓賳賶 賴賵 賲丕 賷卮賰賱 噩賵賴乇 丕賱毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 亘賲丕 兀賳賴丕 鬲鬲噩丕賵夭 丨丿賵丿 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丨丿賵丿 丕賱賱睾丞 匕丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賳賶. 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 兀賵 丕賱賰賱丕賲 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 鬲氐胤丿賲 亘丨丿賵丿 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵賴賵 兀賲乇 賷乇賮囟賴 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賲胤賱賯賸丕. 賲孬賱丕賸貙 廿賳 丕賱賯囟賷丞 "夭賷丕丿 賷氐丿乇 丨賰賲賸丕 亘兀賳 丕賱賯賲乇 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 丕賱兀乇囟" 賱賴丕 賲毓賳賶 賵氐丕丿賯丞 (廿匕丕 賳胤賯 亘賴丕 夭賷丕丿 亘丕賱賮毓賱) 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 毓亘丕乇丞 "丕賱賯賲乇 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 丕賱卮賲爻" 鬲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕賱賵丕賯毓丞 丕賱賲賲賰賳丞 丕賱賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 兀賳 丕賱賯賲乇 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 丕賱卮賲爻. 賵丕賱丌賳貙 賱賳鬲兀賲賱 賲孬丕賱丕 丌禺乇: "丕賱賯囟賷丞" 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 "夭賷丕丿 賷氐丿乇 丨賰賲賸丕 亘兀賳 丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞". 廿賳 賴匕丕 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 爻賷賰賵賳 兀賷囟賸丕 匕丕 賲毓賳賶 賮賯胤 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 "丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞" 賵丕賯毓丞 賲賲賰賳丞 兀賵 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍貙 賵廿賱丕 賮廿賳賴丕 爻鬲賰賵賳 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 亘賱丕 賲毓賳賶. 賷賰卮賮 鬲丨賱賷賱 賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 賱賱兀丨賰丕賲 兀賳賴 賱賰賷 賷賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 賲毓賳賶 賱丨賰賲 兀禺賱丕賯賷 (賲孬賱 "夭賷丕丿 賷氐丿乇 丨賰賲賸丕 亘兀賳 丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞")貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱賰賷 賷賰賵賳 賯囟賷丞貙 賷噩亘 毓賱賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 丕賱丨賰賲 (賲孬賱賸丕貙 "丕賱卮賮賯丞 噩賷丿丞") 兀賳 鬲丨賷賱 廿賱賶 丨丕賱丞 兀卮賷丕亍 賲賲賰賳丞. 賮賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賯囟丕賷丕 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 賵賯丕卅毓 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 賲賲賰賳丞.
*.*.*.*.*.*
December 5, 2024
Indispensable not simply for an understanding of one of the greatest minds, but on its own terms a text that demands careful reading from any person who would think on such subjects. The text accomplishes what I think all the liberal minded theology fails to do; namely, to demonstrate the absolute inanity of all rationalistic discourse on religion. I cannot imagine anyone who would entertain something as stupid as the arguments of Freud's Future of an Illusion or its various modern avatars such as Dennett could be convinced by Tillich's distinction between literal and symbolic vocabularies or any of James's impassioned appeals in Will to Believe: I would delight, by contrast, in seeing the embarrassment of such a person as they read Wittgenstein's brief and at times hysterically gentle demonstrations of the small-minded bigotry, provincialism, and astonishing unreason in this bloviating representation of English reason.
Wittgenstein's deeply felt kinship with Nietzsche is obvious from this text; one recalls the latter's characterization of Mill as "flachkopf" or his declaration that the world Herbert Spencer claims as the zenith of progress is a nightmare for the non-English in Wittgenstein's treatment of Frazer. Above all, both are united in a deeper demonstration of the irrational perspectivalism that characterizes rationalistic practice, its necessary injustice as Nietzsche might have said (Nietzsche is usually linked to Freud in this regard; one need not read far into Freud to find a pathetic dependence on scientism and its prejudices, a fact Wittgenstein was quick to recognize in his sympathetic remarks on Freud). But a key distinction emerges in comparing between the two: Nietzsche, even in the period of his most thorough going attacks on the slavish character of scientific activity under the reign of positivism and the ideology of progress, never quite got over the dependence on a superficial rationalist refutation of religion. Wittgenstein utterly by passes the need for any such vocabulary; it is wholly wrong and irrational, and has nothing to recommend it.
What makes Wittgenstein's analysis so powerful is that it is profoundly ananthropological. Even liberal minded theologians (James, for his broad sympathy, would be the exception, more concerned with men than Man) begin from the generic fact of Man and his needs; that is, from the perspectives of Robinson-ism and 18th century rationality. Among hard line believers in the ideology of reason, we have religion as a source of error in man's conquest of nature by knowledge of facts; among their opponents, we have religion as a source of symbols in man's adjustment to the universe by values. Neither side is saying anything that fundamentally contradicts the other, as in most oppositions of this kind.
It is not that myth and science have different objects that makes such explanations as Frazer's wrong; it is that rationalistic discourse has produced a narrow image of language and its activity that mutilates it and the life it serves. Myths are not propositions that enter into the realm of true and false; they are, rather, a sediment of our language. Lesser thinkers (one thinks of Austin; Lakoff's inscription of metaphoricity into the heart of discourse, like some Moses with his tablet, is an even more depressing example) would attempt to derive principles and categories from this thought. Wittgenstein has no need for such a thing; the belonging of language to itself in its endless self-differentiation is enough, so long as we take a few moments to understand what it is we're even talking about.
Implicit in Wittgenstein's remarks here is the basic position of both Heidegger and Foucault; that language and discursivity are groundings themselves, and that no generic humanitas or gattungswesen comes to language from itself derivatively. True, in major writings Wittgenstein speaks of the bedrock of the human lebensform, which is also implicit here (hence the brilliant observation that the ability to speak of souls and ghosts in describing the practices of primitive societies speaks of far deeper kinship than any of the superficial and accidental differences Frazer wishes to emphasize); but the lebensform is precisely man's activity as speaking being. The lebensform, much more than the Heideggerian ontological difference or Foucault's various notions of discourse, knowledge, and power, is the thought of an active and irreducible pluralism, of a world which is at all times without identity with itself and which language and experience can light up at all times and in all manner - a world which is only ever worlds loosely "hanging together" (a favorite phrase of James; one should also recall Heidegger's explanation of identity in terms of the Zusammenhang of the different) in a no less irreducible plurality of relations.
The goal of any philosophical pluralism is to give everything unique its due; it is justice towards "All things counter, original, spare, strange." If any of the great critics of rationalistic excess - from Blake to Heidegger - seem to us unjust in their own estimations of generalizing and abstracting activities we by and large admire and regard as necessary within their own sphere, this must be judged as a consequence of the fact that the emergence of these activities is by no means innocent; our sciences were not borne in the general disposition of thaumazein but in a historical project that sought for itself sole claim to reality and determination. Marx, in the 1844 manuscripts, said that man's technical progress is the book of his powers; this is very simply wrong, for reasons more or less like those Marx himself would recognize in the Grundrisse: that is, that man's powers are not the organs of his generic situation but instead a decision about what that situation will be, which involves subordinating or even outright excluding his other powers.
Wittgenstein is not virulent or willfully irrational, nor opposed to any more general humaneness. He very simply destroys every claim of the various vocabularies vying for hegemony. His most important work is his last, On Certainty, in which he gets rid of the notions of epistemic realism and "common sense" (that people can still take such questions seriously is astonishing to me); in preparation for this effort - usually interpreted as merely therapeutic - is this great celebration of the inexhaustible variety of human phenomena. What distinguishes Wittgenstein from the various irrationalisms is that he does this not in the name of intellectual self-mutilation, but a giving of language over to itself as human life. To bring language as language to language, Heidegger names as the defining task; in the end, I think Wittgenstein did the same.
Wittgenstein's deeply felt kinship with Nietzsche is obvious from this text; one recalls the latter's characterization of Mill as "flachkopf" or his declaration that the world Herbert Spencer claims as the zenith of progress is a nightmare for the non-English in Wittgenstein's treatment of Frazer. Above all, both are united in a deeper demonstration of the irrational perspectivalism that characterizes rationalistic practice, its necessary injustice as Nietzsche might have said (Nietzsche is usually linked to Freud in this regard; one need not read far into Freud to find a pathetic dependence on scientism and its prejudices, a fact Wittgenstein was quick to recognize in his sympathetic remarks on Freud). But a key distinction emerges in comparing between the two: Nietzsche, even in the period of his most thorough going attacks on the slavish character of scientific activity under the reign of positivism and the ideology of progress, never quite got over the dependence on a superficial rationalist refutation of religion. Wittgenstein utterly by passes the need for any such vocabulary; it is wholly wrong and irrational, and has nothing to recommend it.
What makes Wittgenstein's analysis so powerful is that it is profoundly ananthropological. Even liberal minded theologians (James, for his broad sympathy, would be the exception, more concerned with men than Man) begin from the generic fact of Man and his needs; that is, from the perspectives of Robinson-ism and 18th century rationality. Among hard line believers in the ideology of reason, we have religion as a source of error in man's conquest of nature by knowledge of facts; among their opponents, we have religion as a source of symbols in man's adjustment to the universe by values. Neither side is saying anything that fundamentally contradicts the other, as in most oppositions of this kind.
It is not that myth and science have different objects that makes such explanations as Frazer's wrong; it is that rationalistic discourse has produced a narrow image of language and its activity that mutilates it and the life it serves. Myths are not propositions that enter into the realm of true and false; they are, rather, a sediment of our language. Lesser thinkers (one thinks of Austin; Lakoff's inscription of metaphoricity into the heart of discourse, like some Moses with his tablet, is an even more depressing example) would attempt to derive principles and categories from this thought. Wittgenstein has no need for such a thing; the belonging of language to itself in its endless self-differentiation is enough, so long as we take a few moments to understand what it is we're even talking about.
Implicit in Wittgenstein's remarks here is the basic position of both Heidegger and Foucault; that language and discursivity are groundings themselves, and that no generic humanitas or gattungswesen comes to language from itself derivatively. True, in major writings Wittgenstein speaks of the bedrock of the human lebensform, which is also implicit here (hence the brilliant observation that the ability to speak of souls and ghosts in describing the practices of primitive societies speaks of far deeper kinship than any of the superficial and accidental differences Frazer wishes to emphasize); but the lebensform is precisely man's activity as speaking being. The lebensform, much more than the Heideggerian ontological difference or Foucault's various notions of discourse, knowledge, and power, is the thought of an active and irreducible pluralism, of a world which is at all times without identity with itself and which language and experience can light up at all times and in all manner - a world which is only ever worlds loosely "hanging together" (a favorite phrase of James; one should also recall Heidegger's explanation of identity in terms of the Zusammenhang of the different) in a no less irreducible plurality of relations.
The goal of any philosophical pluralism is to give everything unique its due; it is justice towards "All things counter, original, spare, strange." If any of the great critics of rationalistic excess - from Blake to Heidegger - seem to us unjust in their own estimations of generalizing and abstracting activities we by and large admire and regard as necessary within their own sphere, this must be judged as a consequence of the fact that the emergence of these activities is by no means innocent; our sciences were not borne in the general disposition of thaumazein but in a historical project that sought for itself sole claim to reality and determination. Marx, in the 1844 manuscripts, said that man's technical progress is the book of his powers; this is very simply wrong, for reasons more or less like those Marx himself would recognize in the Grundrisse: that is, that man's powers are not the organs of his generic situation but instead a decision about what that situation will be, which involves subordinating or even outright excluding his other powers.
Wittgenstein is not virulent or willfully irrational, nor opposed to any more general humaneness. He very simply destroys every claim of the various vocabularies vying for hegemony. His most important work is his last, On Certainty, in which he gets rid of the notions of epistemic realism and "common sense" (that people can still take such questions seriously is astonishing to me); in preparation for this effort - usually interpreted as merely therapeutic - is this great celebration of the inexhaustible variety of human phenomena. What distinguishes Wittgenstein from the various irrationalisms is that he does this not in the name of intellectual self-mutilation, but a giving of language over to itself as human life. To bring language as language to language, Heidegger names as the defining task; in the end, I think Wittgenstein did the same.
March 3, 2019
Pretty fantastic transitionary work which doesn't need extensive knowledge of Frazer. He isn't interested in criticizing Frazer for its own sake, but rather it echoes his thoughts on why he likes Weininger that runs something like if you throw a negation sign in front of the book it tells an important truth. Not literally of course, but he means to point out that the supposed "error" in Augustine continually addressing God in the Confessions, and the error in pointing this out as an error, says something about how we understand custom, religious sentiment, and truth. If we are to take Frazer literally regarding ancient tribe practices, it would go to point out how terribly superstitious we all are, that we believe a person's soul will leave their body if we don't say "bless you," or that I am invoking divine punishment against the leg of a chair when I stub my toe and say "god damn it." As such, we can't assume for example that a tribe almost scientifically believes that a ritual before a rain season actually causes the rain. Wittgenstein is pointing out the expressions and affectations we perform and have no account for, and suggesting the poverty of naive expository or scientific accounts of these events. It's a short scattering of notes, but it is punchy and well worth it. This is a great new edition although I didn't spend a lot of the time with the essays as they are written by anthropologists with anthropology in mind. One backwards take on the TLP regarding epistemology did warn me a bit, but by no means does it poison the well.
March 30, 2019
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 丿乇賵爻 賱賮賷鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 氐睾賷乇丞貙 亘毓囟賴丕 賰鬲亘賴丕 胤賱丕亘賴
賲毓 鬲毓賱賷賯 賵 卮乇丨 賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲
丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓 賮賱爻賮丞 賮賷鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳貙 賱賷爻 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲 亘賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賯胤 賱兀賳賷 賱賲 兀賯乇兀 賱賴 廿賱丕 賴匕丕 兀賵 毓賳賴
賮賭 兀乇賷 兀賳 丕賱丕賲賵乇 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賱丕 賷鬲賲 兀禺匕賴丕 賮賯胤 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賵 丕賱賲氐胤賱禺丕鬲 賵 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇丕鬲貙 兀乇賷 兀賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 匕賵 亘毓丿 兀禺乇 兀賰亘乇 賵 賳鬲丕噩 禺亘乇丕鬲 夭 兀卮賷丕亍 賰孬乇丞貙 毓賱賷 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 賱賰賳賴丕 賱賷爻鬲 丕賱賮賷氐賱 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賵 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳.
賲毓 鬲毓賱賷賯 賵 卮乇丨 賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲
丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓 賮賱爻賮丞 賮賷鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳貙 賱賷爻 賮賷 丕賱毓賲賵賲 亘賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賯胤 賱兀賳賷 賱賲 兀賯乇兀 賱賴 廿賱丕 賴匕丕 兀賵 毓賳賴
賮賭 兀乇賷 兀賳 丕賱丕賲賵乇 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賱丕 賷鬲賲 兀禺匕賴丕 賮賯胤 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱賱睾丞 賵 丕賱賲氐胤賱禺丕鬲 賵 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇丕鬲貙 兀乇賷 兀賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 匕賵 亘毓丿 兀禺乇 兀賰亘乇 賵 賳鬲丕噩 禺亘乇丕鬲 夭 兀卮賷丕亍 賰孬乇丞貙 毓賱賷 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 賱賰賳賴丕 賱賷爻鬲 丕賱賮賷氐賱 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賵 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳.
November 18, 2023
One of my few philosophical publications was on Wittgenstein. In preparing it I'd read most of his work, much of it assembled posthumously by what I think of as the 'Wittgenstein industry'. This slight pamphlet is such.
I've never read more than fragments of Frazer--enough to have gotten the gist of his arguments. Wittgenstein's critical remarks are of the character of annotations. The kinds of things one might write in the margins of a text. Without the contexts, only occasionally given, these remarks often hang off into space.
I've never read more than fragments of Frazer--enough to have gotten the gist of his arguments. Wittgenstein's critical remarks are of the character of annotations. The kinds of things one might write in the margins of a text. Without the contexts, only occasionally given, these remarks often hang off into space.
Read
February 20, 2025No estoy muy adentrado en la 蹿颈濒辞蝉辞蹿铆补 de Wittgenstein de hecho no s茅 absolutamente nada de la 蹿颈濒辞蝉辞蹿铆补 de Wittgenstein pero como le铆 La Rama Dorada hace poco y todav铆a lo tengo fresco en la memoria aprovech茅 y le di una chance. Mi concepto favorito en el mundo es el de libros que hablan sobre otros libros as铆 que la pas茅 muy bien!
May 26, 2021
Good book
November 28, 2023
For anthro, but loved it. Hilarious at times honestly
Read
February 12, 2025Pues cuando un d铆a empec茅 a hablar del 芦mundo禄 (y no de este 谩rbol o esta mesa), qu茅 pretend铆a si no conjurar algo superior en mis palabras.
Read
March 23, 2025Wittgenstein will probably have a cameo in my thesis
June 1, 2020
This volume, as it鈥檚 editors acknowledge, had been on the verge of publication for some time. I had anticipated it鈥檚 arrival, but having now finished it I was somewhat underwhelmed.
As anyone familiar with Wittgenstein will already know his philosophy was a singular one, elements of which continue to have strong resonances with contemporary thought. What his legacy suffers from however is excessive, derivative fascination with the minutiae of his musings, and a number of the contributions to this volume are no exception to that.
The other aspect which much Wittgensteinian scholarship suffers excessively from are tedious and interminable discussions over minor points of translation from his original german writings. There are countless philosophers whose work has been translated with this fact being of very little significance. Admittedly Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy did focus on translation as a complex and fraught process, but the point has already been made and the constant labouring of how best to interpret certain original expressions of his has the effect of diminishing his philosophical legacy to pedantic concerns.
Specifically within this volume there are some insightful and original contributions which I found engaging and enriching. However on the whole this book, like the field of Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy and linguistic philosophy more generally, suffers from engaging in overly specific dialogue about rarified concerns that have largely been superseded (although this seems to have escaped a number of contributors to this volume).
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tenets of the so-called 鈥渙ntological turn鈥� in anthropology, one cannot seriously ignore the fact that it has drastically changed the terms and focus of anthropological research and debate. Surprisingly given HAU Journal of Ethnographic theory has been a key publication for the unfolding of this movement, the authors of this volume (published by HAU Books) seem either to be largely ignorant of this movement or else have decided to ignore its impact and instead cling to their anachronisms.
This volume has moments of sharp insight and wisdom, but overall fails to realise any real advancement in the appreciation and reception of Wittgenstein鈥檚 idiosyncratic philosophy; descending instead into pedantics, fawning praise and derivative and uncritical applications of his ideas.
It may be of use to serious fans and scholars of Wittgenstein鈥檚 work, but I would not recommend it to a wider readership within anthropology and adjacent areas of philosophy and sociology.
As anyone familiar with Wittgenstein will already know his philosophy was a singular one, elements of which continue to have strong resonances with contemporary thought. What his legacy suffers from however is excessive, derivative fascination with the minutiae of his musings, and a number of the contributions to this volume are no exception to that.
The other aspect which much Wittgensteinian scholarship suffers excessively from are tedious and interminable discussions over minor points of translation from his original german writings. There are countless philosophers whose work has been translated with this fact being of very little significance. Admittedly Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy did focus on translation as a complex and fraught process, but the point has already been made and the constant labouring of how best to interpret certain original expressions of his has the effect of diminishing his philosophical legacy to pedantic concerns.
Specifically within this volume there are some insightful and original contributions which I found engaging and enriching. However on the whole this book, like the field of Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy and linguistic philosophy more generally, suffers from engaging in overly specific dialogue about rarified concerns that have largely been superseded (although this seems to have escaped a number of contributors to this volume).
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tenets of the so-called 鈥渙ntological turn鈥� in anthropology, one cannot seriously ignore the fact that it has drastically changed the terms and focus of anthropological research and debate. Surprisingly given HAU Journal of Ethnographic theory has been a key publication for the unfolding of this movement, the authors of this volume (published by HAU Books) seem either to be largely ignorant of this movement or else have decided to ignore its impact and instead cling to their anachronisms.
This volume has moments of sharp insight and wisdom, but overall fails to realise any real advancement in the appreciation and reception of Wittgenstein鈥檚 idiosyncratic philosophy; descending instead into pedantics, fawning praise and derivative and uncritical applications of his ideas.
It may be of use to serious fans and scholars of Wittgenstein鈥檚 work, but I would not recommend it to a wider readership within anthropology and adjacent areas of philosophy and sociology.
July 28, 2017
Como si el rel谩mpago fuera algo m谩s cotidiano o menos asombroso que hace dos mil a帽os. Para asombrarse, el hombre 鈥攜 quiz谩 los pueblos鈥� debe despertar. La ciencia es un medio para adormecerlo de nuevo. Es decir, resulta falso afirmar: 鈥渄esde luego, estos pueblos primitivos deb铆an asombrarse ante los fen贸menos鈥�. Pero quiz谩 mejor: 鈥渆stos pueblos se asombraron ante todas las cosas de su alrededor鈥�
Ten铆a un compa帽ero de trabajo que ten铆a un curioso ritual a la hora de comerse un pepino (s铆, no pregunt茅is, en mi trabajo se com铆an pepinos y muchos otros tipos de vegetales) Consist铆a en cortar sucesivamente cada extremo y frotar cada fragmento contra el cuerpo del pepino. As铆, dec铆a, se evitaba que el pepino amargase. Yo le preguntaba c贸mo sab铆a, antes de frotar los trozos, si el pepino era amargo o no, es decir, si alguna vez, despu茅s de cumplimentar el ritual, el pepino le hab铆a amargado rompiendo las expectativas m谩gicas del procedimiento. Por lo general me mandaba a la mierda.
La ciencia es un medio para adormecer nuestro asombro, dice Wittgenstein en estas notas, publicadas p贸stumamente y encontradas entre sus apuntes. Su disputa con Frazer es que 茅ste consideraba los rituales m谩gicos de las culturas primitivas como un "error". Para Wittgenstein, Frazer contemplaba la antig眉edad con los ojos de una sociedad aburrida y pr谩cticamente clerical.
Interesante.
January 9, 2025
A Fascinating Read. His critique of Frazer is sharp as you鈥檇 expect. Wittgenstein argues that rituals aren鈥檛 about a Frazerian attempt to manipulate the natural world but are rooted in human expressions of needs and emotions. His analogies, like stomping your foot in anger or kissing a photo of a loved one, perfectly illustrate this point.
The book starts strong with Wittgenstein鈥檚 remarks, but the bulk of the volume is made up of essays by anthropologists responding to his work. This is where it lost momentum for me. Many of the essays felt unfocused, quoting Wittgenstein heavily without adding much insight or engaging directly with his main ideas. Some listed unrelated rituals without analyzing them in the context of Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy, which felt like a missed opportunity.
If you鈥檙e interested in Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy, the first 30 pages are absolutely worth reading鈥攖hey鈥檙e concise, brilliant, and relevant. The commentary might appeal more to anthropologists.
The book starts strong with Wittgenstein鈥檚 remarks, but the bulk of the volume is made up of essays by anthropologists responding to his work. This is where it lost momentum for me. Many of the essays felt unfocused, quoting Wittgenstein heavily without adding much insight or engaging directly with his main ideas. Some listed unrelated rituals without analyzing them in the context of Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy, which felt like a missed opportunity.
If you鈥檙e interested in Wittgenstein鈥檚 philosophy, the first 30 pages are absolutely worth reading鈥攖hey鈥檙e concise, brilliant, and relevant. The commentary might appeal more to anthropologists.
March 14, 2024
It is incredible how every single one bit of information Stephan Dumbie, whose grammatical grasp is hideous, bothers to introduce in brackets is completely unnecessary. This twat (shall we say?) might want to consider putting the whole dumb thing he has in mind in brackets so that I could skip it all next time.
July 1, 2017
Algo de raz贸n tiene Wittgenstein, Frazer ve a un viejo sacerdote pagano de la misma manera que aun p谩rroco de pueblo ingl茅s, esa visi贸n es muy pobre y ensucia su an谩lisis. Lo que no quita que La Rama Dorada es un maravilloso libro.
November 8, 2019
賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 噩丿賸丕 賵噩毓賱賳賷 兀賮賰賾乇 賰孬賷乇丕賸 賵噩毓賱賳賷 兀賳馗乇 賱兀賲賵乇 賰孬賷乇丞 賲賳 夭丕賵賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞. 賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮丞 賲毓賯丿 賵賱賷爻 亘丕賱爻賴賱 兀亘丿賸丕貨 賮賱丕 兀賳氐丨 亘賴 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 賮賯胤 丕賱鬲爻賱賷丞
July 25, 2020
賲丨丕囟乇丕鬲 賵丕賱賲丕毓丕鬲 賵賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賱賮鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 丨賵賱 孬賱丕孬賷丞 賲賴賲丞 賵噩丿賱賷丞 ( 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱爻丨乇) 賵丕賱賱睾丞 胤亘毓丕 賴賷 賲丿丕乇 丕賱亘丨孬 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 20, 2023
The best remarks are not contained in this book, and this is why even though Wittgenstein鈥檚 remarks are interesting, it is just worth three-star.
April 14, 2014
Notas p贸stumas de W sobre la religi贸n y las costumbres. Fuerzan a pensar.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.