<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>人文學的無用之「用」（後續）</title>
<link>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html/</link>
<description><![CDATA[George Herbert 的「視覺詩」&quot;The Temple&quot; （1633；部分）關於「人文學之用」的問題，Stanley Fish 這幾天寫了後續，並回答讀者留言：&ldquo;The Uses of the Humanities, Part Two&rdquo;比上篇長，argument 更細些。怕煩者，無興趣者，勿點看。&nbsp;Part One 在此＋我的引言。]]>
	</description>
<language>zh-tw</language>
<generator>Roodo Blog System</generator>
<copyright>All Rights Reserved</copyright>
<atom:link href="http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143-comment.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
	<title>回應：人文學的無用之「用」（後續）</title>
	<description><![CDATA[It is hard to teach humanities--which is like searching/deliberately ignoring the possibility in creating/disclosing impossibility.

(sorry cannot think of any other terms more effecitive than the Derridian much-misused ones.)

 I appreciate much that Stanley did a comprehensive answer to the responses to his initial article. Several potent reflections are given like "that simultaneously reports a resolution and undermines it," or

"the greater satisfaction is the opportunity to marvel at what a few people are able to do with the language we all use," or

"the truth is that a mastery of literary and philosophical texts and the acquisition of wisdom (in whatever form) are independent variables."

The concession that humanities as their own achievement and their own good refute instrumentality is an issue of the saying, rather than the said.

One thing kindles my interest to him after the reading : Stanley shifts his pleasure from "something like an athletic satisfaction" to the closing phrase of "moments of aesthetic wonderment."]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html#comment-16123125</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:38:07 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：人文學的無用之「用」（後續）</title>
	<description><![CDATA[感謝提醒！ 
已經補上。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html#comment-15599799</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:20:08 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：人文學的無用之「用」（後續）</title>
	<description><![CDATA[左邊欄位關於〈安潔拉‧卡特的小說花火秀〉的預告
好像漏了演講時間ㄝ？]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/formosans/archives/4982143.html#comment-15597633</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:49:55 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>