娴熟
发表于 2025-3-23 09:53:51
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5811/581055/581055_11.png
关节炎
发表于 2025-3-23 16:38:57
On the Paradigm of Production: Marxian Materialism and the Problem of the Constitution of the Sociaith them can be found, and both the conditions of a revolutionary change and its basic direction can be specified. The ‘primacy’ of material production of life for Marx draws its significance first of all from the ‘pragmatic standpoint’ of a socialist transformation.
entreat
发表于 2025-3-23 20:37:26
Book 1986ferences with other positivists) - Markus examines the alternative interpretations of that paradigm in the hermeneutic tradition from Dilthey through Heidegger and Gadamer, and then in the structural anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss and in the philosophy of language of Ludwig Wittgenstein. In all
intrigue
发表于 2025-3-24 01:54:43
0068-0346 y through Heidegger and Gadamer, and then in the structural anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss and in the philosophy of language of Ludwig Wittgenstein. In all978-94-010-8532-8978-94-009-4574-6Series ISSN 0068-0346 Series E-ISSN 2214-7942
strain
发表于 2025-3-24 02:46:06
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5811/581055/581055_15.png
缺陷
发表于 2025-3-24 10:23:08
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5811/581055/581055_16.png
AVERT
发表于 2025-3-24 11:19:25
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5811/581055/581055_17.png
Ligament
发表于 2025-3-24 16:42:09
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5811/581055/581055_18.png
BLINK
发表于 2025-3-24 21:20:42
Gyorgy Markus time” (Arnold 1986). I approach this question through Romanticism—the foundation of Bloom’s career and reaffirmed throughout this book, which, by locating Shakespearean “singularity” in the plays’ unparalleled “diversity of persons” and “inner selves,” identifies itself with “Romantic criticism, fr
FIS
发表于 2025-3-25 03:11:11
d to the margins of critical discourse. Recently, however, Harold Bloom’s new work as an appreciator has acquired mainstream status. As an appreciator, Bloom borrows covertly from Swinburne, but he also borrows more than he cares to admit from recent “Resentment” critics—Marxist, feminist, and New H