The Thinker's Toolkit 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

An invaluable resource for any manager or professional, this book offers a collection of proven, practical methods for simplifying any problem and making faster, better decisions every time.

From the Hardcover edition.

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：The Thinker's Toolkit在线阅读

在线听书地址：The Thinker's Toolkit在线收听

在线购买地址：The Thinker's Toolkit在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

An invaluable resource for any manager or professional, this book offers a collection of proven, practical methods for simplifying any problem and making faster, better decisions every time.

From the Hardcover edition.

• 作者：Windywings 发布时间：2016-01-11 18:36:24

  精彩纷呈！

• 作者：白彦衡 发布时间：2018-11-14 16:59:01

  比较基础

• 作者：J几米 发布时间：2021-12-23 08:28:45

  可以作为决策工具书，底层逻辑在于人类思考方式存在一些非理性和非结构化因素，本书的方法可以在一定程度上帮助人类进行更全面有效的分析。

• 作者：swtar 发布时间：2021-08-21 12:03:34

  彩印，158页，18页的英文对照表，140页内容中，每页基本都只有半页内容(一张图，两句话)，另外一半留白，作者美其名曰：留白是为了方便大家做笔记。再说内容，都是些基本操作，很多小节有二维码，据说可以扫码看视频，实操结果是看不了。总之谁买谁沙雕！有这49块钱，还不如加点买Adobe的官方教材，或者去B站找免费视频，他不香？！

• 作者：戴一 发布时间：2013-06-05 11:23:55

  擦，被骗了，民科一枚。开始看成江晓原的书了，后来发现是江波，又一看，我去，这货否定世界的本质是物质也就罢了，否定宇宙起源于大爆炸认为宇宙起源于精神与物质，还自己提出神马层级假说。。。。

• 作者：雪豹跳跳 发布时间：2024-01-27 20:25:15

  插画很精致，课文都是之前学习的。翻起来满是回忆。

• The Authority of the Author, the Reader and the Text in Julian Barnes`A History of the World in 10 ½

  作者：snowsun 发布时间：2013-11-02 10:44:57

  The Authority of the Author, the Reader and the Text in Julian Barnes`A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters, E.P. Thompson` Witness against the Beast and Roland Barthes` The Death of the Author

  Julian Barnes seems to be ambitious in trying to conclude the history of the whole world in ten and a half chapters, but if we understand that he is just using a literary way to express his historical view and the truth of human history he values, this length is enough for use. In Barnes` account, he raised a vital question of the authority in interpreting history, or the authority of interpreting the literary works, which are considered to bear history. Who has the authority to interpret the text, the reader or the author? What`s the responsibilities of the reader and the author respectively in bringing meanings to a text? Is there an absolute truth in the interpretation? Who should we trust if there is not?

  By discussing about how novelists, El Greco, poets and prose writers produce their art , Barnes seems to argue that the authors are responsible for bringing the text to the reader, but they lack control of the interpretation to it, just like the metaphor of the lonely sea-captain directing a ship without engine-room and rudder, although he spares no effort to direct the ship, it actually listens to the winds and tides instead of him. The author`s effort to control his work will probably come to a similar result, as his process of producing the artistic work is influenced by the social ideology, his past, the economic factors and many other mysterious issues nobody could possibly know. The author may hold his own interpretations to the artistic work, as El Greco painted himself in his ‘Burial of the Count of Orgaz’, he is showing his authority of production and interpretation of the work; however, the author could not master the reader`s interpretation to the artistic work, as the reader has his own interpretations basing on his life experience, world view etc., and he does not need to accept the author`s interpretation. It appears that the more flexibility the author has, the more control he has to turn his work into what he want, but at the same time more interpretation and ambiguity of the work are produced. The example of poets and prose writers has illustrated this point, as poets own the flexible ‘I’ and have the ability to turn bad love into good love poetry, while prose writers can only turn bad love into prose about bad love, poetry are less trustworthy than proses to the reader.

  E.P. Thompson however, holds a quite different view towards the authority of the reader and the author. In his Introduction to Witness against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law, he tries to analyze William Blake in a historian`s way, which is, knowing who Blake actually was by ‘placing Blake`s thought within the political and cultural context of his times’ and ‘the very particular intellectual tradition which Blake formed his mind in’ . In his opinion, the academic way of studying Blake is too isolated and ex parte, the readers are welcome to bring meanings to Blake`s words, but at least they need to know what he really want them to discuss about. Therefore to precisely understand Blake`s poetry, proses and paintings, we should first know who he was and why he made his works that way, hence it is necessary to understand what tradition guided his reading and writing and painting.

  In this essay Thompson is in fact arguing that the author has the absolute right to interpret his work, while the reader can only follow and should not have entirely different interpretations basing on their own experience, ideology etc. Thus a fixed direction of explanation has been set for all kinds of artistic works, as ‘Baudelaire`s work is the failure of Baudelaire the man, Van Gogh`s his madness, Tchaikovsky`s his vice’ . At this circumstance the text becomes the very narrowed ‘unique one’ with no potential to be further explained or developed; for the readers, they have only got the right to accept or reject the text; therefore both the reader and the text have been restricted. To solve this dilemma, Roland Barthes (1977) suggested a solution at the cost of ‘the death of the author’. According to him, only by cutting down the natural relationship between the writer and the text and giving the readers the right to interpret can the text be given new lives.

  In The Death of the Author, Barthes identified the relationship between the author and the reader as ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the Author’ . As stated by him, writing begins when ‘a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively’ , but it does not necessarily happen to the Author. In the ethnographic societies a mediator conducts writing, and the Author is a modern product of the capitalist society, as a result of the discovery of ‘human person’ . Consequently, ‘it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality to reach the point where only language acts, ‘performs’, and not ‘me’’ , and the author is removable. As a result of the removal of the Author, the text could be change. The Author, if believed in, will be considered father of his work in temporality, but if he is substituted to a position of a modern scriptor, he will exist at the same time with his text and writing can no longer represent a process of recording, notation etc. Hence he only writes for no origin, or if any origin, it is language itself. A text at this sense is ‘a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.’ Thus, once the Author is removed, trying to decode a text will become meaningless. The Author puts limitations to the text and closes the writing, while reading can become the origin of new interpretations and give the text new life. The reader, who produces the space to hold together all the traces constructed the text, is the real solution to a restricted text.

  In summery, Barthes is maintaining that to interpret a text only through the text itself by destroying the instrumental function of language (recording, representing etc.), denying the stability of a text (Author-God interpretation) and cutting down the author-to-text and author-to-reader approaches in the author-text-reader relationships, the diverse explanation of the text could be achieved. His opinion is completely opposite to that of Thompson`s, who claims that the author has the absolute authority to interpret his work, and the readers can only choose to accept or reject it. Barnes looks to stand in the middle, or maybe the side closer to Barthes, as he believes, although the author wants to keep control of his work, he cannot manage it. He may want to get rid of the sway from his past and the environment but could not handle it, and there are many other factors changing his direction while he does not actually know. Even so the author still has the right to put himself in his work, but the reader may not accept it. And the more flexible the work is, the more interpretations the reader may bring to it. Both the author and the reader give the work meanings, but neither of them are dominate, hence the text has large freedom to speak for itself, which is also one of the goals Barthes wants to achieve at the sacrifice of the author.

  [Word count: 1362]

  References:

  Barnes, Julian. A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters. London: Vintage, 2009

  Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author. London: Fontana, 1977

  Thompson, E.P. Witness against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law. Cambridge: the University Press, 1994

• 读<<宋应星和《天工开物》>>有感..

  作者：黑格尔的诡辩 发布时间：2009-10-15 23:59:27

  "乾隆设四库馆修《四库全书》时，发现宋应星的哥哥宋应升的《方玉堂全集》、宋应星友人陈弘绪等人的一些著作有反清思想，因此《四库全书》没有收入宋应星的《天工开物》。乾隆以后，也再没有人刊刻此书，因此《天工开物》在清代没有进一步流通。"

  【重政轻工的思想也是奠定了清朝从乾隆开始的衰退的重要原因吧】.

  而日本在公元1771 年，书商柏原屋佐兵卫发行了《天工开物》在日本的第一个翻刻本，从此，《天工开物》成为日本江户时代（1608—1868）各界广为重视的读物，刺激了18 世纪时日本哲学界和经济界，兴起了“开物之学”。

  公元1952 年，日本京都大学的学者们将《天工开物》全文译成现代日本语，并加译注、校注及标点，至今畅销。

  1830 年，法国著名汉学教授儒莲（1797—1873）首次把《天工开物·丹

  青》部分译成法文，并称译自中文并摘自名为<天工开物>的"技术百科全书".

  1832 年，儒莲的法文译本又转译为英文，刊发于《孟加拉亚洲文会报》卷一中。

  1847 年，儒莲的另一篇法文译文《铜合金·白铜·锣钲》（译自《天工开物·五金》章），在译成英文后又被译成德文刊于德国《应用化学杂志》。

  英国著名生物学家达尔文（1809—1882）在读了儒莲翻译的《天工开物》中论桑蚕部分的译本后，把它称之为“权威著作”。

  英国科学史家李约瑟博士把《天工开物》称为“中国的阿格里科拉”和“中国的狄德罗....

  .............

  ...........

  ........

  "一本外国人争相阅读学习的书籍,在自己的国家却被排挤和轻视.最后反而跑到外国去学习所谓的先进技术,而看不见自己宝贝".

  聊想今日,中国的崇洋媚外的思想一点未改,无数有能力有创造力的民间科技人才被埋没,反而花高薪请些被国外踢出来三教九流,技术垄断,技术禁令比比皆是.

  试想,你用的是别人技术,在竞争上谁更具主导权?你拥有的只是技术,而别人拥有的是技术思想.技术可以夺走,思想却永远是自己的.

  当然这又要撤到另外一个需要解决的问题上了.

  说实话,很佩服中国军方,武器要自己生产,航母要自己造的思想.虽然我仍然认为现在造航母是没必要的.并且中国武器工业发展缓慢的根本原因也是上面所说.

  以上拿来跟禁锢中的工科同胞共缅,只知道"外国品牌中国制造"的闲杂人等禁止跟贴,咱们暂时不是一个世界的.