• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environment and History >The Origin and Construction of Knowledge
【24h】

The Origin and Construction of Knowledge

机译：知识的起源与建构

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In essence the core of these five papers is the question of the origins and 'construction' of knowledge. Each paper seeks to question the 'originality' of George Perkins Marsh in his Man and Nature, and more specifically David Lowenthal's assessment of Marsh's ideas on the environment in his magnificent new (and second) biography of Marsh. Does Lowenthal claim too much for Marsh, or, put another way, minimise Marsh's debt to others by ignoring the earlier writing on the environment? For example, the work of John Evelyn on tree cutting and smoke pollution in the seventeenth century, or the observations of Grove's late eighteenth/early nineteenth-century colonial explorers and wayfarers, or those of Richard Judd's 'common-folk', or Graham Wynn's Titus Smith in this collection. Possibly even more important still, were the evolving 'moral ecologies' of many settler societies confronting new and strange environments in North America, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century overlooked? The arguments for and against need little rehearsal here as the case for Marsh's precursors is amply stated in this issue and also hinted at in Greg Barton's recent book Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism, which links implicitly 'imperialism' and 'environmentalism'. Equally clear and forthright has been Lowenthal's robust reply that these assertions beg the question as to Marsh's originality and contribution to environmental thinking. The final chapter of his biography (pp. 404-31 and more especially pp. 419-37) and his more extended treatment in 'Nature and Morality from George Perkins Marsh to the Millennium' leave one in no doubt that he believes that Marsh made a unique contribution not only as early as the 1840s through direct observation in his native Vermont, but particularly in Man and Nature by synthesising a wide spectrum of existing knowledge and evolving new concepts and categories of human modification and restoration, a view held widely by others.
机译：本质上，这五篇论文的核心是知识的起源和“建构”问题。每篇论文都试图质疑乔治·珀金斯·马什（George Perkins Marsh）在其《人与自然》中的“原始性”，更具体地说，是大卫·洛文塔尔（David Lowenthal）在其宏伟的《沼泽》新书（及第二本）传记中对沼泽的环境观念的评价。 Lowenthal是否对Marsh索赔太多，或者换一种说法，通过忽略早期关于环境的文字，将Marsh对他人的债务减至最少？例如，约翰·埃夫林（John Evelyn）在17世纪的树木砍伐和烟尘污染工作，或者格罗夫（Grove）十八世纪末/十九世纪初的殖民探险家和徒步旅行者的观察，或者理查德·贾德（Richard Judd）的“普通民俗”或格雷厄姆·永利（Graham Wynn）的观察。泰特斯·史密斯（Titus Smith）甚至更为重要的是，在18世纪末期和19世纪初，面对北美，澳大利亚，新西兰和南部非洲的新奇环境的许多定居者社会不断演变的“道德生态学”被忽视了吗？赞成和反对的论点在这里几乎不需要排练，因为在本期中已充分说明了沼泽的先驱者的情况，并且在格雷格·巴顿（Greg Barton）的最新著作《帝国林业》和《环境主义的起源》中也有所暗示，该书将隐含的“帝国主义”和“环境主义”联系起来。洛文塔尔（Lowenthal）强有力的回答同样清楚而直截了当，这些论断引出了关于沼泽的独创性和对环境思想的贡献的问题。他的传记的最后一章（第404-31页，尤其是第419-37页）以及他在《从乔治·珀金斯沼泽到千年的自然与道德》中的更广泛的论述，无疑使他相信沼泽会不仅早在1840年代就通过在他的家乡佛蒙特州的直接观察，而且特别是在人与自然中的独特贡献，通过综合广泛的现有知识并发展了人类修饰和复原的新概念和类别，这一观点得到了其他人的广泛认可。 。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号