The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century 在線電子書 圖書標籤: 近現代史  跳讀  教科書  思想史  學術  曆史  文化  外文   

喜歡 The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century 在線電子書 的讀者還喜歡

• 
  The Inner Opium War 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載

A brilliant annales school work for 1944 when it was firstly published. It was significant for re-evaluating "secularization." I like its sophistication. But i cannot handle well the approach of "mentality" because I doubt it at the beginning, especially given it has been so widely applied today and has given rise to some unsatisfactory debates.

A brilliant annales school work for 1944 when it was firstly published. It was significant for re-evaluating "secularization." I like its sophistication. But i cannot handle well the approach of "mentality" because I doubt it at the beginning, especially given it has been so widely applied today and has given rise to some unsatisfactory debates.

A brilliant annales school work for 1944 when it was firstly published. It was significant for re-evaluating "secularization." I like its sophistication. But i cannot handle well the approach of "mentality" because I doubt it at the beginning, especially given it has been so widely applied today and has given rise to some unsatisfactory debates.

A brilliant annales school work for 1944 when it was firstly published. It was significant for re-evaluating "secularization." I like its sophistication. But i cannot handle well the approach of "mentality" because I doubt it at the beginning, especially given it has been so widely applied today and has given rise to some unsatisfactory debates.

A brilliant annales school work for 1944 when it was firstly published. It was significant for re-evaluating "secularization." I like its sophistication. But i cannot handle well the approach of "mentality" because I doubt it at the beginning, especially given it has been so widely applied today and has given rise to some unsatisfactory debates.

没有和原书比对，也没有读过三联的译本，但感觉这本书译笔虽十分流畅，人名和细节翻译却有很多不知所云的错误。阿维森纳译为“阿维塞纳”，司各脱译为“司科特”（141-142页），这都还好理解。但是，维萨留斯为什么译成“维萨尔”（169页）？如果这能接受，那么托马斯·...

没有和原书比对，也没有读过三联的译本，但感觉这本书译笔虽十分流畅，人名和细节翻译却有很多不知所云的错误。阿维森纳译为“阿维塞纳”，司各脱译为“司科特”（141-142页），这都还好理解。但是，维萨留斯为什么译成“维萨尔”（169页）？如果这能接受，那么托马斯·...

没有和原书比对，也没有读过三联的译本，但感觉这本书译笔虽十分流畅，人名和细节翻译却有很多不知所云的错误。阿维森纳译为“阿维塞纳”，司各脱译为“司科特”（141-142页），这都还好理解。但是，维萨留斯为什么译成“维萨尔”（169页）？如果这能接受，那么托马斯·...

没有和原书比对，也没有读过三联的译本，但感觉这本书译笔虽十分流畅，人名和细节翻译却有很多不知所云的错误。阿维森纳译为“阿维塞纳”，司各脱译为“司科特”（141-142页），这都还好理解。但是，维萨留斯为什么译成“维萨尔”（169页）？如果这能接受，那么托马斯·...

没有和原书比对，也没有读过三联的译本，但感觉这本书译笔虽十分流畅，人名和细节翻译却有很多不知所云的错误。阿维森纳译为“阿维塞纳”，司各脱译为“司科特”（141-142页），这都还好理解。但是，维萨留斯为什么译成“维萨尔”（169页）？如果这能接受，那么托马斯·...