罗素论分析的方法和目的——兼评季羡林先生的分析观

分析方法具有很大的用途。它不但体现在哲学思维上,而且体现在日常推理和一般的科学研究中。但是,由于哲学的学科特点,分析方法在哲学中的成功运用不仅需要更大的细心和耐心,而且需要更高的抽象能力和想象能力。在分析观上,和笛卡尔一样,罗素强调了作为分析前提的自明性;但和笛卡尔不一样的是,罗素认为分析的方法本质上不是演绎而是归纳,其目的不是为着得到确实无疑的结论——这样的结论是不会有的,而是为了得到更深刻、更具概括力的结论。这样的分析方法不是别的,正是科学方法论的精髓所在——假说演绎法。     

'Shovelling out your paupers': The British State and Irish Famine Migration 1846-50

Gray considers the determinants of British policy towards emigration (and particularly towards state-assisted 'colonization') from Ireland during the Great Famine of 184-50. He surveys the idea of 'colonization' as advocated by Charles Buller in 1843, and its varying appeal (changing over time) in Ireland, Britain and the settlement colonies of the British empire. He also considers the issue in the light of pro- and anti-Malthusian interpretations of Irish population pressure, and the emergence of the alternative idea of 'internal colonization'. Gray argues that the failure of the state to adopt an emigration policy in 1846-50 as part of its response to the Famine was the consequence of a combination of anti-Irish prejudice in Britain and the colonies (which was sharpened by the arrival of large numbers of economic refugees in 1847 and the political conspiracies of 1848), and the prevalence of an economic doctrine that prioritized the need for Irish self-help and moral transformation over state assistance. He traces the debate over colonization within the Whig government headed by Lord John Russell, and concludes that some form of assisted emigration was a feasible policy measure, and that its rejection had adverse consequences in terms of additional famine mortality.     

Maurice Blanchot: Modernism,Dissidence and the Privilege of Writing

The article links Blanchot’s philosophical and political ideas. Embarking from his recurrent dialogue with Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, it traces the development of Blanchot’s “dissident” version of modernism and his notion of “writing”, alongside his post-war political involvement and writing. I argue that Blanchot never relinquished the purist modernist idea of the privilege of writing and with it the privilege of his own self-identification primarily as a writer. It is my contention that this emphasis sometimes obfuscated his vision, both conceptually and politically. I exemplify my claim by appealing to Blanchot’s unconditional support of Israel and Zionism.