价值崩溃与精神分裂_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
价值崩溃与精神分裂
阅读已结束，下载文档到电脑
想免费下载更多文档？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
下载文档到电脑，方便使用
还剩7页未读，继续阅读
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢如何理解市坊制度的瓦解和崩溃--《快乐阅读》2013年14期
如何理解市坊制度的瓦解和崩溃
【摘要】：正在进行高中历史必修二的复习训练学习活动中,遇到这样一道习题:唐朝长安崇仁坊,大约造乐器在此坊,故多修造乐器的商店,"昼夜喧哗,灯火不绝";延寿坊有造玉器和出售金银珠宝店;胜业坊有卖蒸饼的"以小车推蒸饼卖之";永昌坊有茶肆,新昌坊有客舍及"会饮"的饮所。这种状况不能说明:()①出现坊市混杂的现象②城市商品经济的发展③商业活动时间有突破④出现沿街而市的现象A.①②B.②③C.①③D.①④这道题目编者给出的正确答案是D,但很多同学对答案提出了异议,
【作者单位】：
【关键词】：
【分类号】：G633.51【正文快照】：
在进行高中历史必修二的复习训练学习活动中,遇到这样一道习题:唐朝长安崇仁坊,大约造乐器在此坊,故多修造乐器的商店,“昼夜喧哗,灯火不绝”;延寿坊有造玉器和出售金银珠宝店;胜业坊有卖蒸饼的“以小车推蒸饼卖之”;永昌坊有茶肆,新昌坊有客舍及“会饮”的饮所。这种状况不
欢迎：、、)
支持CAJ、PDF文件格式，仅支持PDF格式
【相似文献】
中国期刊全文数据库
李琴堂;[J];中学生理科月刊;1996年Z1期
刘振宇;[J];广西教育;2004年02期
吉人;[J];教学月刊(中学版);2004年05期
陆汉彬;[J];历史教学问题;1996年01期
戴冠;[J];中学文科;1996年Z3期
李怀平;[J];中学文科;1996年Z3期
葛振东;[J];榆林高等专科学校学报;2000年01期
刘孟君;[J];生物学教学;2005年05期
张静轩;;[J];历史教学(中学版);2007年08期
胡孜;;[J];新课程学习(学术教育);2009年03期
中国重要会议论文全文数据库
韩昇;张逹志;;[A];传统中国研究集刊（第一辑）[C];2005年
张兰;宋金华;;[A];水资源可持续利用与水生态环境保护的法律问题研究——2008年全国环境资源法学研讨会（年会）论文集[C];2008年
姬智明;;[A];叶圣陶德育思想与实践研讨会论文集[C];2004年
朱光;王勇生;谢成龙;向必伟;;[A];构造地质学新理论与新方法学术研讨会论文摘要集[C];2006年
徐小明;;[A];校园文学编辑部写作教学年会论文集[C];2007年
刘国平;;[A];福建省茶叶学会张天福茶学研究分会成立三周年论文集[C];2007年
赵三再;;[A];山西省陶行知研究会成立大会暨首届学术年会论文集[C];1987年
潘瑜眉;;[A];四川省营养学会成立十周年纪念暨1998年学术会议专题报告及论文摘要汇编[C];1998年
郁曙君;;[A];中国地震学会第四次学术大会论文摘要集[C];1992年
钱骏;;[A];第八届全国体育科学大会论文摘要汇编（二）[C];2007年
中国重要报纸全文数据库
陈磊　通讯员
潘明;[N];人民公安报;2011年
兰州市第七十一中学
王颖肃;[N];甘肃日报;2008年
王惠芳陆丰林启恩纪念中学;[N];汕尾日报;2009年
崔逾瑜　通讯员
李建彬;[N];湖北日报;2010年
江苏省滨海县八滩中学
洪兆荣;[N];学知报;2010年
静海一中 李文江;[N];天津教育报;2010年
苍溪县五龙中学 徐恒;[N];广元日报;2010年
重庆市忠县拔山中学
李毅;[N];学知报;2010年
江西省上高二中
宋勇军;[N];学知报;2010年
湖南省益阳市十六中
曹靖波;[N];学知报;2011年
中国博士学位论文全文数据库
王洁;[D];内蒙古大学;2009年
金荣洲;[D];陕西师范大学;2011年
许多;[D];东南大学;2005年
吴强恩;[D];复旦大学;2007年
王化宁;[D];第四军医大学;2009年
王天送;[D];西北师范大学;2008年
黄乘明;[D];北京师范大学;1998年
周钱;[D];清华大学;2008年
王俊芳;[D];中国协和医科大学;2007年
陈翔;[D];武汉大学;2010年
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库
宋月建;[D];重庆师范大学;2011年
王永帅;[D];华东师范大学;2011年
韩冬雷;[D];辽宁师范大学;2010年
赵常琼;[D];重庆师范大学;2010年
徐太阳;[D];福建师范大学;2003年
李碧珍;[D];福建师范大学;2003年
刘庆敖;[D];山东师范大学;2010年
王彩霞;[D];内蒙古师范大学;2010年
陈朝晖;[D];江西师范大学;2005年
朱建坤;[D];东北师范大学;2003年
&快捷付款方式
&订购知网充值卡
400-819-9993
《中国学术期刊（光盘版）》电子杂志社有限公司
同方知网数字出版技术股份有限公司
地址：北京清华大学 84-48信箱 大众知识服务
出版物经营许可证 新出发京批字第直0595号
订购热线：400-819-82499
服务热线：010--
在线咨询：
传真：010-
京公网安备75号为什么中国被入侵征服和分裂是连续的文明？
核心提示：如何理解这种对比：罗马文明的概念随着西罗马帝国的崩溃而消逝，发生在中国的事与发生在西欧的事有什么性质上的区别吗？使得历史学家们说罗马文明结束了而中国文明没有。
How would this contrast with, say, the notion that Roman Civilization died with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire? Are there qualitative distinctions between what happened in China versus what happened in Western Europe that allows historians to say that Roman civilization ended but Chinese civilization did not?
如何理解这种对比：罗马文明的概念随着西罗马帝国的崩溃而消逝，发生在中国的事与发生在西欧的事有什么性质上的区别吗？使得历史学家们说罗马文明结束了而中国文明没有。
以下是美国网友评论：
★Ultimately this question rests more on our perceptions than on reality, but there is a certain amount of truth in saying that Chinese culture is more "continuous" than European (which emphatically does not mean "unchanging"--it has changed as much as Europe). It is worth noting that historians often do identify breaks in Chinese history, saying that the Qin ushered in the "classical" period, the fall of the Han ushered in the "Medieval" period, and the Song began the "early modern" period.&
These terms are ultimately deceptive, although there are certain intriguing similarities that can trap the unwary historian (the equating Buddhism to Christianity, for example), and the case for "transition" is made better for them than for the Fall of Rome. Anyway, here are a couple reasons I can give for your question for why China reformed and Rome did not:
Ethnic identity: "Roman" was always a political rather than ethnic identity. China, on the other hand, had long had what we might call an ethnic component. Rome may have conquered the orb of the world, but China consisted of all under Heaven, which contains an important difference in nuance. After the fall of the Han dynasty, people never stopped talking about reunifying tianxia, which is very much not the case in Medieval Europe. Furthermore, Han Chinese was much more of a "prestige" ethnicity than Roman was, and the nomadic barbarians would often claim descent from famous Han Chinese as a means of bolstering their legitimacy.
The circumstances of collapse: The fall of the Han dynasty and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire were very different. In a way, the fall of the Han dynasty was much more a case of internal fragmentation. External invasion certainly played a part, but a smaller one.
基本上，这个问题是基于概念而非事实的。但是，说中华文化比欧洲文化更具连续性也是有一定的事实基础的（这决不是说它不改变-&&实际上，它变的一点也不比欧洲文化少。）值得注意的是历史学家经常会为中国历史做分段，比如秦朝开启了"古典"时期，汉朝的灭亡标志着"中世纪"的开始，而"现代早期"则发轫于宋朝。
这些词语根本上是具有欺骗性的，虽然中华文化与欧洲文化确实有一些能将不够谨慎的历史学家引入陷阱的有趣的相似之处（比如佛教与基督教的等同），与罗马的衰亡相比，这些朝代用"转换"来描述更合适。无论如何，我有几个理由可以回答你关于为什么中国能够重组而罗马则不行的问题。
民族认同："罗马人"一直都是一个政治认同而不是民族认同。而中国则与之不同，其长久以来一直是一个我们可以称之为的民族构成。罗马可能征服了全世界，但中国则是包括天下所有。这具有一个细微的重要区别。汉朝终结之后，人们不会停止谈论重新统一天下，这与中世纪的欧洲非常不同。此外，汉朝的中国人是一个比罗马人有"声望"得多的族群，游牧部落的野蛮人经常通过宣称他们自己是汉朝中国人的后代来赢得合法性。
崩溃的状态：汉朝的衰亡与西方罗马帝国的崩溃是非常不同的。在某种程度上，汉朝的衰亡更像是内部分裂，当然外部入侵也起了一些作用，但程度较小。
★Roman identity is complicated, and the term "Roman" should not be confused for an ethnic term. It was very much a political identity that existed in tandem with separate regional identities that were closer to what we think of as "ethnic". Someone in Gaul, for example, might consider themselves a Roman and a Gaul, or more broadly someone might identify themselves as culturally Greek, politically Roman, and ethnically Syrian. Even within Italy, someone like Ovid who was very much a Roman still identified himself as being a man from Sulmo.&
This isn't to say they were disloyal, or that the identities were in any way in conflict--in fact, most of scholarship now agrees that nobody, not even the barbarians, wanted the fall of Rome.
The Byzantine point is rather different, because at that time the term "Roman" (or Rhomaioi) had become confused with "Christian". However, this switch occurred after the fall of the West, as can be seen by, say, Ammianus Marcellinus calling himself a "Greek".
In fact, and this is where I bring it back to China, I would say that Chinese identity was rather similar to Greek identity. Greek identity, after all, had spread all across the eastern Mediterranean, allowing for common modes of cultural interaction. Tracking the spread of Chinese identity is rather more difficult, but it is likely that it had spread from Guanzhong to incorporate areas like Sichuan and the Yangtze. (and, eventually, much more).&
The Roman identity was political, so when the political power of the western empire collapsed, so did the identity, while the Chinese one was cultural, allowing survival beyond the collapse of the Han.
罗马人的身份认同是非常复杂的，而且不应该从种族的角度来理解罗马人这个词汇。罗马人这个词汇更多的是一种政治身份，与不同的地域身份串联在一起，而这样的地域身份才更加接近我们所谓的种族概念。比如，位于高卢地区的某个人可能会认为自己既是罗马人也是高卢人，或者从更广泛的角度说，某人会认为自己在文化上是希腊人，在政治上是罗马人，而在种族上是叙利亚人。即使是在意大利，像奥维德（古罗马诗人）是一个罗马人，但是却认为自己是一个来自苏尔摩的人。
这并不是说他们是不忠的，也不是说这些身份认同是相互冲突的&&实际上，现在大部分学者认为没有人（即使是野蛮人）愿意看到罗马的衰亡。
拜占庭就很不一样了，因为在当时"罗马人这个词汇已经同"基督徒"混淆在一起了。然而，这个转变是在西罗马衰弱后才发生的，比如罗马史学家马塞林就称自己为"希腊人"。
讲到这里我们就可以来谈谈中国了，我认为中国的身份认同非常类似于希腊的身份认同。毕竟希腊认同已经扩散到整个地中海东部，考虑到文化互动的共同模式。而要想追踪中国身份认同的扩张就更加困难了，但是有可能的情况是先从广州扩散到混合的地区比如四川和长江地区，最后可能扩散到了更远的地方。
罗马人的身份认同是政治性的，所以当西罗马帝国的政治权力崩溃时，其身份认同也随之崩溃，而中国人的身份认同是文化性的，所以即使汉朝覆灭了，其身份认同依然得以延续。
★Can you recommend an accessible book that has an introduction to/overview of Chinese history? From ancient to WWII?
你能推荐一本可以找得到的概论中国历史的书吗，从古代到二战的？
★Oh boy. John Keay is a fantastic writer and I am sure his book is great. So if you can find it that is a fine choice. However, my two standard responses to this question are these:
China: A New History by John King Fairbanks. This has more or less become the standard survey work on Chinese history, even within academic circles. A very good overview and quite well written, my only complaint being that half of the work deals with the last two centuries.
The history of Chinese Civilization by Jacques Garnet: Drier and less well written than Fairbanks, still it is an excellent introduction. The work is primarily interested in intellectual and cultural history.
小弟，约翰.凯伊是个挺牛逼的作家，我觉得他的书不错。如果你能找到，那也是一个不错的选择。然而，我对此问题的两个标准回答是：
John King Fairbanks写的《中国：新历史》。这部书或多或少地变成了一本标准的中国历史概论，即使在学术圈里也是如此。这书写的不错，对中国历史有很好的论述。我唯一的不满是这部书花了一半的篇幅讲述过去两百年的历史。
Jacques Garnet 写的《中国文明的历史》。比Fairbanks写的差一点，比较无趣。然而，也是一个挺好的入门读物。这部书主要是讲述文化方面的历史。
★Would the fact that after the Han fell, the eventual new empire that rose from it, The Jin Dynasty, ruled over basically the same land and people be one of the main reasons it was considered continuous?
汉朝灭亡以后，新崛起的晋朝基本上统治了同一土地和人民。这一事实是不是中华文明被认为是连续的主要理由之一？
★The Jin dynasty itself was sort of short lived (sure, it was around for a century, but that's peanuts in Chinese terms). It's kind of easy to forget, honestly. Basically, you had an Early Zhou dynasty, under which central control later effectively fragmented into the Warring states period, reunion under the harsh, legalist Qin dynasty, what was considered the height of Chinese civilization for a long time afterward under the Han dynasty, disunion under the Three Kingdoms period, the Jin dynasty, another period of disunion under the Northern and Southern dynasties, a short reunion under the Sui followed by a long golden age under the Tang, a final period of near total fragmentation under the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, another golden age under the "Northern Song" dynasty, until foreigners conquered northern China and founded the Jin dynasty (with the "Southern" Song continuing on in the south), the first (and, arguably, only) total foreign conquest of China under the Yuan dynasty (what the Mongols called themselves), followed by the native Ming dynasty, and, finally, the Qing's, who were technically foreigners, but were had been heavily sinicized, and are often seen as more hyper-Confucian than the Ming.
晋朝自己就是短命王朝（绝对的，虽然延续了一百年，但一百年在中国历史上就是碟小菜），说实话，很容易被遗忘掉。（中国历史）基本上就是早期周朝；然后中央集权崩溃，进入战国时期，被暴秦统一；在之后的汉朝统治的很长一段时期里，中华文明达到了鼎盛；之后分裂为三国、晋朝、又分裂为南北朝、又被短命隋朝统一、进入唐朝的长期繁荣，并以四分五裂的五代十国结束；然后进入北宋的繁荣时期，直到外国人占领了中国北方，建立了金朝（南宋继续在中国南方存在）；接着，第一次（是不是唯一？可争论）外国人彻底占领中国建立元朝（蒙古人自称为元朝）；接下来是汉人的明朝，最后是清朝，技术上讲也是外国人，但是严重汉化了，甚至人们普遍认为清朝比明朝还尊崇孔孟文化。
★Basically, China was together for much longer than it was apart, and this kept the people from dividing into multiple different identities. Chinese culture mostly absorbed and sinicized what conquerers came along, instead of the reverse.
基本上，中国统一的时间远比分裂的时间长，这阻止了人民分化出多个不同的身份认同。中国吸收入侵者文化的同时也汉化他们，而不是相反。
★The Mandate of Heaven theory probably aided in this, as it allowed smooth transitions of power when some revolution occurred, or there was a foreign conquest (perhaps something similar would've happened in Rome if they would've accepted a German emperor - instead, several German generals had to contend with incompetent Latinate puppets, and it eventually became more convenient to them to just do away with the title). Europe, on the other hand, was pretty much only united during Roman times, which shorter than some of those individual dynasties I mentioned above, with the only exceptions maybe being Napoleon and Hitler.&
天命所归的理论可能也有所助益，因为发生革命或者外国占领的时候，它有助于政权的顺利转移（也许，要是罗马人接受了日耳曼人皇帝，类似的事情也会发生在罗马时期--相反地，那些日耳曼军阀不得不与那些无能的拉丁人傀儡皇帝周旋，最终，他们觉得还是摆脱那些傀儡更方便些）。另一方面，欧洲只是在罗马时期才统一了一下，比我上面提及的某些单个王朝还短，拿破仑和希特勒可能算是唯一的例外。
★There were a couple of big attempts to bring it back, but Justinian ran out of steam after just taking north africa, Italy, and a sliver of southern Spain, and Charlemagne basically just had Gaul, northern Italy, and Germany (which was never even in the Roman empire, so really, just Gaul and northern Italy). Almost half of the empire was conquered by the Muslims, which permanently set them on a different path than the larger European, Mediterranean world they had formerly been an integral part of, and the Europeans in turn integrated northern and eastern parts of Europe that had never been under the Roman sphere of influence.&
历史上曾经有过几次（统一）尝试，可是，（东罗马皇帝）查士丁尼只拿下北非、意大利以及西班牙南部的一小条就没劲了。（西罗马皇帝）查理曼大帝基本上只征服了高卢、意大利北部以及日耳曼（日耳曼绝对没在罗马帝国版图里呆过，只是高卢和意大利北部）。（东）帝国几乎一半被穆斯林占领，这使得他们永久走向一条与其曾经从属过的大欧洲，地中海世界截然不同的道路，而欧洲人反过来控制了罗马帝国的影响力从未到达过的欧洲北部和东部。
★After long periods of separation in the middle ages, Latin began evolving into dozens of totally different regional languages.
经过中世纪的长期分裂之后，拉丁语开始演化为几十种截然不同的地区性语言。
★Focusing on the rise and fall of states is perhaps missing the point. A civilization doesn't end just because there's a new ruler. If Rome had never fallen apart for more than a few hundred years, like China, perhaps there'd still be some sort of Roman civilization and identity. But that's obviously not the case.
只着眼于国家的兴衰也许就失去了重点。一个文明不会因为出了新的统治者就会终结。要是罗马没有灭亡数百年，就像中国那样，也许世上会依然存在某种罗马文明和身份认同。
★I'm not really willing to point to any particular cause. I am more just noting that the circumstances around the two falls were very different, and so different results are to be expected.
我并不想指向某些特定原因，我只是注意到这2个帝国衰落的环境非常不同，所以很可能会导致不同的结果。
★I made a comment below about how the Chinese always view their country as latent in the way that a King Arthur is always waiting to unify England. Their equivalent, historically, would be an Emperor. The culture of China never died even when geographically separated, and played a great deal in their warfare, making military occupants adopt to their culture than vice versa.
我发了一个评论，是关于中国人如何像亚瑟王总是等待着统一英格兰一样将他们的国家视为一个潜在的统一国家。他们的对等物，从历史上来看，就是一个君王。就算地理上被分割，中国文化也从未死去，并在他们的战争中扮演很重要的角色，使得军事占领者们反而采用了中国文化，而不是相反。
★The question you're asking has to do with the way history is told. We attribute the end of the Roman Empire with the collapse of the Western half because Edward Gibbon didn't care for Constantinople and it worked its way into our historiography.&
你问的问题与历史怎样书写有关。我们将罗马帝国的结束视为西方（罗马文明）的崩溃一半是因为爱德华吉本（Edward Gibbon）不关心君士坦丁堡并反映到了我们的编史中
★Most serious scholars of the subject do not consider it to be the end date and do not make a significant distinction between the 'Byzantine' empire and the Roman Empire proper. Unfortunately, that idea has already lodged in the public consciousness and cannot be removed without a serious investment in historical education (lol).
这个学科的大多数严肃学者们并不将这个视为（罗马文明的）最后日期，也没有对拜占庭帝国和罗马帝国间的区别做明确区分。不幸地是，这个观点已经深入到公众意识中，除非认真对待历史教育，否则很难改变。
★Similarly (and perhaps someone with a little more experience in the field than me can go into further detail), China has always maintained an idea that the Chinese culture was so impressive and unshakeable that it would conquer the conquerors - victory even in defeat.&
与此相似（可能某个在该领域比我稍有经验的人能讲一些更深入的细节），中国则一直认为中国文化太有感染力且不可动摇，从而可以征服那些入侵者，以至于就算被打败也会胜利。
★This is partially true - the Mongols and later the Manchus, rather than declaring China conquered, fashioned themselves as emperors to make the populace easier to rule.
Does this mean that Chinese rule was continuous? Obviously not. (Interestingly, the Mongols are actually responsible for uniting a divided China, which the previous emperors could not do). But since history is often about how you tell it, China has managed to work this national myth into the histories and that's how the story is told.
这种说法部分来说是正确的&&蒙古和之后的满族，不仅没有宣称自己征服了中国，反而把自己塑造成君主，以便自己更好的统治大众。这真的意味着中国的统治具有延续性？显然不是。（有趣的是，正是蒙古使得分裂的中国重新统一，而前朝则做不到）但是既然历史经常与书写方式有关，所以中国成功的将这个民族神话写进了历史，所以历史就是这么来的。
★Well, he asked whether Chinese civilization (which I assume is analogous to culture) was continuous, not Chinese rule.
But you allude to an interesting point: the Han Dynasty controlled certain areas around China, like Korea and northern Vietnam, that became fully independent of Chinese rule after the fall of the Han. Could they, in a way, be equated to the Western Roman Empire? The Eastern Mediterranean is arguably quite continuous with the Roman Empire, even through the Muslim rule.
哦，他问的是中国文明（我认为其与文化等同）的延续性，而不是统治的延续性。
但是你提及了一个有趣的观点：汉朝统治的中国周边地区，比如朝鲜北越，在汉朝衰落后已经完全独立于中国的统治。这能以某种方式与西罗马帝国等同么？地中海东部在整个罗马帝国时期也能说具有延续性，就算经历过穆斯林统治时期。
请支持独立网站，转载请注明本文链接：/4376.shtml
文章来源：龙腾网 | 责任编辑：旺旺