Political scientists, it is true, have sought to construct models of political change. And this book owes almost as much to thei

admin2013-08-15  33

问题     Political scientists, it is true, have sought to construct models of political change. And this book owes almost as much to their work as to the work of economists. In the historian’s mind, however, the attempt to construct and test equations to explain(for example)the incidence of war, the spread of democracy or the outcomes of elections inspires almost as much skepticism as admiration.【F1】Nothing can be said against the method which constructs formal hypotheses and then tests them against empirical evidence; it is the best way of disproving would-be "laws" of human behavior. But we must be deeply suspicious of any equation that seems to pass the empirical test . For human beings are not atoms . They have consciousness, and that consciousness is not always rational.
    【F2】You seem certain that man himself will give up erring of his own free will because there are natural laws in the universe, and whatever happens to him happens outside his will. All human acts will be listed in something like logarithm tables and transferred to a timetable. They will carry detailed calculations and exact forecasts of everything to come. But then one might do anything out of boredom because man prefers to act in the way he feels like acting and not in the way his reason and interest tell him.【F3】One’s own free, unstrained choice, one’s own whim, be it the widest, one’s own fancy sometimes worked up to a frenzy—that is the most advantageous advantage that cannot be fitted into any table. A man can wish upon himself, in full awareness, something harmful, stupid and even completely idiotic in order to establish his right to wish for the most idiotic things.
    History may be "grand" and "colorful", but for Dostoevsky its defining characteristic is irrational violence:" They fight and fight and fight; they are fighting now, they fought before, and they’ll fight in the future. So you see, you can say anything about world history except one thing, that is, it cannot be said that world history is reasonable. "
    【F4】The book’s central conclusion is that money does not make the world go round, any more than the characters in Crime and Punishment act according to tables. Rather, it has been political events a hove all, wars that have shaped the institutions of modern economic life: tax collecting bureaucracies, central banks, bond markets, stock exchanges.【F5】Moreover, it has been domestic political conflicts— not only over expenditure, taxation and borrowing, but also over non-economic issues like religion and national identity that have driven the evolution of modern political institutions: above all, parliaments and parties. Though economic growth may promote the spread of democratic institutions, there is ample historical evidence that democracy is capable of generating economically false policies! and that limes of economic crisis(such as those caused by war)may be equally conducive to democratization.
【F4】

选项

答案本书得出的中心结论就是,金钱不会推动世界运转。就像《罪与罚》中的人物不会依照表格行事一样。

解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/UEO4777K
0

最新回复(0)