mydriatic
发表于 2025-3-26 21:39:21
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_31.png
gorgeous
发表于 2025-3-27 01:43:28
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_32.png
态学
发表于 2025-3-27 06:05:59
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_33.png
集中营
发表于 2025-3-27 12:23:42
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_34.png
有杂色
发表于 2025-3-27 13:52:03
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_35.png
amenity
发表于 2025-3-27 18:13:13
The Problem of Art-Languages,gree of exactitude, we can also explicate the symbols of ordinary language. We can always use sense-data to elucidate the symbols of any rational discourse. Without some such elucidation, indeed, these symbols are likely to be condemned as meaningless. We can ‘say what we mean’ without just repeating our words.
forestry
发表于 2025-3-27 22:59:59
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_37.png
广口瓶
发表于 2025-3-28 05:22:54
http://reply.papertrans.cn/24/2391/239073/239073_38.png
阴郁
发表于 2025-3-28 09:25:11
Was ist Röntgenstrahlung — wie entsteht sie?iptive criticism remains blind, opaque to its own workings. A proper criticism must take into account the structure of critical propositions in their relation to the artefacts they describe. Only by providing such an account can description transcend itself. For the propositions of criticism are emp
ingenue
发表于 2025-3-28 12:35:15
Was ist los mit dem Treibhaus Erde. Yet there seems to be no way of effecting a successful analysis. We speak of the ‘symbols’ of art-works or literary texts, but there is something odd in so speaking. For we cannot strictly say what they symbolise in the way that we can explicate (up to a point, anyway) the symbols of mathematics.