• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

和訳お願いします。

いつもすみません。 和訳できるかたよろしくおねがいします。 This example brings us to a difficult point on deconstruction's capacity to analyse (the image or any other from of the sign), for it leads us to ask the question as to how one is supposed to perform such a deconstruction. To understand precisely what is involved in this difficulty it is important to distinguish between two models of analysis.

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数57
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8087/9979)

この例は、(イメージあるいは任意の他の合図を)分析すべき脱構築上の能力に関して、困難な点を私たちに突きつけてくる。なぜなら、それによって人はこのような脱構築をいかにして行なうと想定されるか、ということに関して尋ねざるを得ないようにさせられるからである。何がこの困難に含まれるかを正確に理解するためには、分析の2つのモデルを峻別することが重要になってくる。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

いつもありがとうございます。

関連するQ&A

  • 和訳お願いします。

    The difficulty of course - and this is an 'of course' added by deconstruction - is that this internal drifting is not only a fundamental part of any act of communication, it is also essential. Deconstruction does not create such internal drifting, such moments of indecision and complication in the sign, but it does work to expose them and to acknowledge their existence. 和訳できるかた宜しくお願いします><

  • 翻訳お願いします。

    It is important to note that not all temporal shifts and developments do this, but what we are most interested in is how deconstruction can be used to analyse when such temporal shifts, and crises, take place. Ofcourse part of this is to recognizse that such shifts cannot simply be seen as a clear-cut change from one order to another, for often there is overlap and blurring. 英語できる方翻訳お願いします><

  • 和訳お願いします

    Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is "The System". The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it take on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others-coldly, efficiently, systematically.

  • 翻訳お願いします><

    Multiple camera angles are used to deconstruct the space as well as time, so each time we revisit the passage of play, it is the same moment of time presented from a different perpective. It does seem rrather overstating the case to call the slow-motion replay in a spoting event a synchronic deconstruction, and yet it is undeniable that something is happening to our sense of time when these 'sub-texts' are presented. Threre is this compulsion to analyse when we witness the slow motion - we are being told that this is a moment of significance and worthy of closer, slower examination. The telecast itself takes such interruptions and rather than losing the sense of the immediacy of the images actually strengthens that sense. 英語できるかた宜しくおねがいします。

  • 次の和訳を教えて下さい、宜しくお願いします。

    This brings us to the third portion of the swing, the portion of the swing, the portion beyond or nearer the net than the body, which is called the follow through.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    On entering so wide a field of enquiry as that whose limits I have now indicated, it is indispensable to the continuity of advance that we should be prepared, where needful, to supple ment observation with hypothesis. It therefore seems desira ble to conclude this Introduction with a few words both to explain and to justify the method which in this matter I intend to follow. It has already been stated that the sole object of this work is that of tracing, in as scientific a manner as possible, the probable history of Mental Evolution, and therefore, ofcourse, of enquiring into the causes which hare determined it. So far as observation is available to guide us in this enquiry, I shall resort to no other assistance. Where, however, from the nature of the case, observation fails us, I shall proceed to inference. But though I shall use this method as sparingly as possible, I am aware that criticism will often find valid ground to object — ' It is all very well to map out the sup posed genesis of the various mental faculties in this way, but we require some definite experimental or historical proof that the genesis in question actually did take place in the order and manner that you infer.'

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It is refreshing to return to the often-echoed remark, that it could not have been the object of a Divine revelation to instruct mankind in physical science, man having had faculties bestowed upon him to enable him to acquire this knowledge by himself. This is in fact pretty generally admitted; but in the application of the doctrine, writers play at fast and loose with it according to circumstances. Thus an inspired writer may be permitted to allude to the phenomena of nature according to the vulgar view of such things, without impeachment of his better knowledge; but if he speaks of the same phenomena assertively, we are bound to suppose that things are as he represents them, however much our knowledge of nature may be disposed to recalcitrate. But if we find a difficulty in admitting that such misrepresentations can find a place in revelation, the difficulty lies in our having previously assumed what a Divine revelation ought to be. If God made use of imperfectly informed men to lay the foundations of that higher knowledge for which the human race was destined, is it wonderful that they should have committed themselves to assertions not in accordance with facts, although they may have believed them to be true? On what grounds has the popular notion of Divine revelation been built up? Is it not plain that the plan of Providence for the education of man is a progressive one, and as imperfect men have been used as the agents for teaching mankind, is it not to be expected that their teachings should be partial and, to some extent, erroneous? Admitted, as it is, that physical science is not what the Hebrew writers, for the most part, profess to convey, at any rate, that it is not on account of the communication of such knowledge that we attach any value to their writings, why should we hesitate to recognise their fallibility on this head?

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It might be thought to have been less easy to reconcile in men's minds the Copernican view of the opening chapter of Genesis.It can scarcely be aside that thin chapter is not intended in part to teach and convey at least some physical truth, and taking it's words in their plain sense,it manifestly gives a view of the universe adverse to that of modern sciences. It represents the sky as a watery vault in which the sun,moon and stars are set.But the discordance of this description with facts does not appear to have been so palpable to the minds of the seventeenth century as it is to us.The mobility of the earth was a proposition startling not only to faith but to the senses.The difficulty involved in this belief having been successfully got over ,other discrepancies dwindled in importance .The brilliant progress of astronomical science subdued the minds of men;the controversy between faith and knowledge fell to slumber ; the story of Galileo and the Inquisition become a school commonplace ,the doctrine of the earth's mobility found it's way into children's catechisms , and the limited views of the nature of the universe indicated in the Old Testment ceased to be felt as religious difficulties.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.

  • ■■英文和訳お願いします。

    ・It is the laborious and painstaking men who are the rulers of the world.There has not been a statesman of eminence but was a man of industry. ・The true genius is a mind of large general powers, accidentally determined to some particular direction. ・No man of science is likely to achieve anything great,unless he brings to his work a zeal comparable with that of religion,and unless he is prepared to follow truth wherever it leads him. But zeal without strict discipline of the intellect will get him nowhere. ※以下の日本語でお願いします。 laborious:勤勉な  painstaking:骨折りを惜しまない eminence:卓越  but=that…not industry:勤勉 general:一般に通じる  accidentally:偶然に determined:限定された  zeal:熱心   discipline:統制、規律 可能ならば解釈なども併せてお願いします。