In other words, it's not a completely supercilious argument, sort of "God is brought into being the same way objects that we make use of are brought into being."
换句话说,这并不完全是一个目空一切的论点,他认为,上帝形成的方式,与我们所用之物形成的方式是一样的“
Conservativism--deep organic forms of Conservativism is not antithetical to the Enlightenment, at least not entirely.
保守主义者是保守主义的有机形式,和启蒙运动并不对立,至少不完全是
It's not entirely serious, even as it declares its seriousness.
这本并不像它所申明的那样,完全是严肃的。
Why? It's a good question, it's not something that economists seem to understand very well.
至于原因是什么,的确值得研究,即使是经济学家,也并不见得完全明白。
Because the two are not identical despite massive amounts of scholarship that confuses this issue: thinks holy means pure, thinks common means impure, and it just doesn't: these are different binary oppositions. The two are not identical.
因为这俩并不完全相同,还是会有很多学者会弄混它们:,认为神圣的就是纯洁的,普通的就是不纯洁的,实则不然:,它们是不同的相对关系,它们并不完全相同。
When you look at a random walk you have the intuitive impression that you can extrapolate it -that it doesn't look like -you can't believe it's really random, but the reason you can't is because you overweigh the probability of certain things that caught your attention.
当人们观察随机漫步序列时会有直观印象,并可以以此类推,虽然这看起来并不像...,人们不会觉得这是完全随机的,之所以如此,是因为,人们过分高估了特定事物发生的可能性,这吸引了人们的注意
A star is something called a pointer so it turns out a string is not quite what I'm describing it to be here.
就是所谓的指针,所以string并不完全是我在这儿描述的这样。
Calvinists weren't exactly what the French call rigolo, weren't exactly wild, fun-loving types.
加尔文教徒并不完全是法语中的 "rigolo",他们并不是那么奔放,有趣的人
They are simply analytical tools. They're not inherently biased. They can be applied fairly to the text, and they're extraordinarily useful. It's just that some of the earlier practitioners of these methods did have ideological axes to grind, and we need to be aware of that.
所以它们只是分析工具,本身并不带有偏见,它们是十分有用的,完全可以运用于文本,但一些早期实施者并没有将其,融会贯通,我们必须意识到这一点。
应用推荐