----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hills erect their purple Heads The revier lean to see Yet Man has not of all the Through A Curiosity 群峦耸起它们高贵的峰巅 众合川争相探视 可是在众生之中唯独人 丝毫不感到好奇 (-- by Emily Dickinson ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 林恩-马古利斯（Lynn Margulis）在一本书中写道： 【 世俗的人文环境是不容忍独特的，不容忍有见地的科学发现的，特别是那些使我们原以为正常的宗教文化感到不安的观点。同为人类，我们都一样迷恋那些熟悉的、与主流思想一致的观念。总而言之，习惯或者传统对我们的影响之深，超过了我们的想象。即便我们对某种特定的哲学或思维方式并没有一个适合的名称，也没有相关的历史知识，我们都已经淹没在我们安全的现实思维中。我们的观点对我们见到的和知道的事物的认识塑形，添加色彩。我们已经接受的、确认是事实或者真理的观念，都顽强地要整合到我们整个思维模式中去。然而，对此我们并不一定都能意识到。这种传统文化的束缚可以称作经过训练的无能、思维共性或者现实的社会构建；你可以用任何你愿意用的名词称呼这些决定我们观点的主要因素。所有的人都背负着沉重的语言、民族、宗教和辈份的精神负担，难以感受新的观念。科学家同任何人一样，也要隐藏影响他或她的行为的假说，以及不知不觉中冒出来的想法。 】
Edited by ZHANGTANQIN What is Humanism? Changing the world, one mind at a time... by Frederick Edwords Executive Director, American Humanist Association http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html PART 1 ALL KINDS OF HUMANISMES What is humanism? The sort of answer you will get to that question depends on what sort of humanist you ask! The word humanism has a number of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism -- the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So, let me summarize the different varieties of humanism in this way. Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture. Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood. Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law. Philosphical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest . Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism. Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as a philosophy advocating the self- fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles. This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism. Modern Humanism , also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion . Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories. Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought . Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy. Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense. PART 2 RELATION BETWEEN SECULARITY AND RELIGION The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence. Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree. The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical world view. To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life's harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose. To serve social needs, Humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age celebrations, funerals, and so forth), an opportunity for affirmation of one's philosophy of life, and a historical context for one's ideas. Religious Humanists maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion (taken in the functional sense I just detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion. I was once asked by a reporter if this functional definition of religion didn't amount to taking away the substance and leaving only the superficial trappings. My answer was that the true substance of religion is the role it plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community . Doctrines may differ from denomination to denomination, and new doctrines may replace old ones, but the purpose religion serves for PEOPLE remains the same. If we define the substance of a thing as that which is most lasting and universal, then the function of religion is the core of it. Religious Humanists, in realizing this, make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now. This is why Humanist child welcoming ceremonies are geared to the community and Humanist wedding services are tailored to the specialized needs of the wedding couple. This is why Humanist memorial services focus, not on saving the soul of the dear departed, but on serving the survivors by giving them a memorable experience related to how the deceased was in life. This is why Humanists don't proselytize people on their death beds. They find it better to allow them to die as they have lived, undisturbed by the agendas of others. Finally, Religious Humanism is faith in action. In his essay The Faith of a Humanist, UU Minister Kenneth Phifer declares -- Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us . We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedomz in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us. Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called religious. This isn't a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it. Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists as Humanists not yet out of the church habit. But Unitarian- Universalists sometimes counter that a secular Humanist is simply an unchurched Unitarian. Probably the most popular example of the Secular Humanist world view in recent years was the controversial author Salman Rushdie. Here is what he said on ABC's Nightline on February 13, 1989, in regard to his novel The Satanic Verses. that there is an old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the religious view of the world, and particularly between texts which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are imaginatively inspired. . . . I distrust people who claim to know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in line with that one true truth. I think that's a very dangerous position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged constantly in all sorts of ways, and that's what I tried to do. In the March 2, 1989, edition of the New York Review, he explained that, in The Satanic Verses he -- . . . tried to give a secular, humanist vision of the birth of a great world religion. For this, apparently, I should be A tried. . . . Battle lines are being drawn today, one of my characters remarks. Secular versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose which side you are on. The Secular Humanist tradition is a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology, Humanist themes that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies of other cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus. Prometheus stands out because he was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is the root of the Humanist challenge to authority. The next time we see a truly heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the Devil. He is evil. Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken. Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of God's moral standards. I said, If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions! Only a Humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good , or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God's will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists who claim this tradition. After all, much of Human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightening or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called acts of God. When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth's gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, according to Jerry Falwell, thwart God's punishment of homosexuals. Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights , and even the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the tradition. Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism's historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because, after all this time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know NOTHING. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method --a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross- examination . And Socrates didn't die for truth, he died for rights and the rule of law. For these reasons, Socrates is the quintessential skeptical Humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the Humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death. Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian--who said: What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized缩影by ancient Jerusalem. But don't assume from this that Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of Robert G. Ingersoll: When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon地牢 was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds. Enough to make a Secular Humanist shout hallelujah! The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith , usually to the point of eschewing 回避faith altogether. The dichotomy 对分between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious. These paradoxical features not only require a unique treatment of Religious Humanism in the study of world religions, but also help explain the continuing controversy, both inside and outside the Humanist movement, over whether Humanism is a religion at all. The paradoxes don't end here. Religious Humanism is usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife , and without a belief in a higher source of moral values. Some adherents would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without belief of any kind-- knowledge based on evidence being considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of religious knowledge as knowledge gathered through nonscientific means is not generally accepted in Religious Humanist epistemology. Because both Religious and Secular Humanism are identified so closely with cultural humanism, they readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human rights, and free inquiry. Humanism's rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic psychology. And Humanism's historic advocacy of the secular state makes it another voice in the defense of church/state separation. All these features have led to the current charge of teaching the religion of secular humanism in the public schools. The most obvious point to clarify in this context is that some religions hold to doctrines that place their adherents at odds with certain features of the modern world which other religions do not. For example, many biblical fundamentalists, especially those filling the ranks of the Religious Right, reject the theory of evolution. Therefore, they see the teaching of evolution in a science course as an affront to their religious sensibilities. In defending their beliefs from exposure to ideas inconsistent with them, such fundamentalists label evolution as humanism and maintain that exclusive teaching of it in the science classroom constitutes a breech in the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state. It is indeed true that Religious Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But individuals within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science --and hence evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately taught in science courses. That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy over humanism in the schools. Other courses of study have come to be identified with Humanism as well, including sex education, values education, global education, and even creative writing. Today's Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that situation ethics was invented by 1974 Humanist of the Year Joseph Fletcher. But situational considerations have been an element of Western jurisprudence for at least 2,000 years! Again, Secular and Religious Humanists, being in harmony with current trends, are quite comfortable with all of this, as are adherents of most major religions. There is no justification for seeing these ideas as the exclusive legacy of Humanism. Furthermore, there are independent secular reasons why schools offer the curriculum that they do. A bias in favor of the religion of secular humanism has never been a factor in their development and implementation. The charge of Humanist infiltration into the public schools seems to be the product of a confusion of cultural humanism and Religious Humanism. Though Religious Humanism embraces cultural humanism, this is no justification for separating out cultural humanism, labeling it as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and naturalistic religion called Religious Humanism, and thus declaring it alien. To do so would be to turn one's back on a significant part of one's culture and enthrone the standards of biblical fundamentalism as the arbiter of what is and is not religious. A deeper understanding of Western culture would go a long way in clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over humanism in the public schools. PART 3 SUMMARY ON HUMANISM Once we leave the areas of confusion, it is possible to explain, in straightforward terms, exactly what the modern Humanist philosoph y is about. It is easy to summarize the basic ideas held in common by both Religious and Secular Humanists. These ideas are as follows: Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore. Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge . Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness. Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches预感, speculation, flashes of inspiration , emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternate approaches for solving problems. Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now . Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death. Humanism is a philosophy of compassion . Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities. Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making. Humanism is in tune with the science of today . Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable soul, and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system. Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems , an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives. Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment. Humanism is, in sum , a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, Humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails. PART 4 ACTIONS BY HUMANISTS Though there are some who would suggest that this philosophy has always had a limited and eccentric following, the facts of history show otherwise. Among the modern adherents of Humanism have been Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and 1957 Humanist of the Year of the American Humanist Association; humanistic psychology pioneers Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, also Humanists of the Year; Albert Einstein, who joined the American Humanist Association in the 1950s ; Bertrand Russell, who joined in the 1960s; civil rights pioneer A. Philip Randoph who was the 1970 Humanist of the Year, and futurist R. Buckminister Fuller, Humanist of the Year in 1969. The United Nations is a specific example of Humanism at work. The first Director General of UNESCO, the UN organization promoting education, science, and culture, was the 1962 Humanist of the Year Julian Huxley, who practically drafted UNESCO'S charter by himself. The first Director-General of the World Health Organization was the 1959 Humanist of the Year Brock Chisholm. One of this organization's greatest accomplishments has been the wiping of smallpox from the face of the earth. And the first Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organization was British Humanist John Boyd Orr. Meanwhile, Humanists, like 1980 Humanist of the Year Andrei Sakharov, have stood up for human rights wherever such rights are suppressed. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem fight for women's rights, Mathilde Krim battles the AIDS epidemic, and Margaret Atwood is one of the world's most outspoken advocates of literary freedom--Humanists all. The list of scientists is legion: Stephen Jay Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, E.O. Wilson, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and many others--all members of the American Humanist Association, whose president in the 1980s was the late scientist and author Isaac Asimov. The membership lists of Humanist organizations, both religious and secular, read like Who's Who. Through these people, and many more of less reknown, the Humanist philosophy has an impact on our world far out of proportion to the number of its adherents. That, I think, tells us something about the power of ideas that work. This may have been what led George Santayana to declare Humanism to be an accomplishment, not a doctrine. So, with modern Humanism one finds a philosophy or religion that is in tune with modern knowledge; is inspiring, socially conscious, and personally meaningful. It is not only the thinking person's outlook, but that of the feeling person as well, for it has inspired the arts as much as it has the sciences, philanthropy as much as critique. And even in critique it is tolerant, defending the rights of all people to choose other ways , to speak and to write freely, to live their lives according to their own lights. So, the choice is yours. Are you a Humanist? You needn't answer yes or no. For it's not an either-or proposition. Humanism is yours--to adopt or simply to draw from. You may take a little or a lot, sip from the cup or drink it to the dregs糟粕. It's up to you. This is the text of a talk that has been presented to various audiences over the years. Copyright 1989 by Frederick Edwords So long as profit is not your motive and you always include this copyright notice, please feel free to reproduce and distribute this material in electronic form as widely as you please. All nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications have additional permission to publish this in print form. Other permission must be sought from the author through the the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the following address: AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION 1777 T Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202-238-9088
行医是一个崇高的职业。大家都知道，做一名好医生，不仅仅需要专业技能和科学知识。在内科学经典名著《哈里森内科学原理》（ Harrisons Principles of Internal Medicine ）第一版、第一节、第一页的导言中，哈里森（ Tinsley Harrison ）是这样描述医生的： No greater opportunity, responsibility or obligation can fall to the lot of a human being than to be a physician. In the care of the suffering he needs technical skill, scientific knowledge, and human understanding. He who uses these with courage, humility, and wisdom will provide a unique service for his fellow man and will build an enduring edifice of character within himself. The physician should ask of his destiny no more than this, and he should be content with no less. 在 2005 年的最新版本（第 16 版）的前言中，你还可以看到这段话。这段话还刻在了哈里森雕像旁边的石碑上（附图）。 我实在不敢直译这段话。仅就个人理解，其大意是：能当上医生，是一个人一生中最为难得的机遇，或者说是一生中要承担的最重大的责任。在医治患者的时候，他需要技术技能、科学知识，以及对人类的同情心。在施治过程中，要有勇气、要谦卑、要有智慧，这样他才会给自己的同胞提供独一无二的服务，才会在自己心中建立起不朽的人格圣殿。医生的人生追求，达此目标则别无奢求；尚有距离，则不应满足。 行医需要技能和知识，也需要一颗同情心（人对人的理解， human understanding ）。我们每天与病人接触，最需要的是互相之间的理解，这也是良好的医患关系的基础。在信息技术迅速发展的今天，我们日常的医疗活动也许不知不觉地在发生变化。监护屏上的心率、血压、呼吸，也许就代替了一次次的床旁探视和交谈。在某一期的 New England Journal of Medicine(2008 年 12 月 25 日出版 ) ，美国某教学医院的一名高年资医生发表了一篇文章，题目是文化休克 - 病人成为影像，影像成为病人（ Cultural Shock-Patient as Icon, Icon as Patient ）。 作者认为，有两种不同的诊视病人的方式在发生冲突。一种是所谓的传统方式，把病人当作教科书，这本教科书不断地发生变化，需要经常的望触叩听，病房中的气味、家属的诉说、结节状的肝脏、阵挛、鼻唇沟消失、嘶哑的声音 .. 这一切都在帮助你了解病人。而另一种方式，姑且称之为便捷方式（ the expedient way ），老师并没有正式教授，但住院医师好像都学会了的。病人依然是中心，但却成为另一个实体的影像（ icon ），可称之为 iPatient 。在很多情况下，急诊医生已经对病人进行了筛查、检测和诊断，以致住院医师在见到真正的病人之前，早已见到完整的 iPatient 了。各种变化着的化验和检测指标都示踪在荧屏上，就像道琼斯指数一样。医生们也在工作间内讨论着这个 iPatient 的情况。本文作者最后强调的是：对临床医生来说，床旁是一块圣地，我们的同胞给我们这样一个特权，让我们去看他、去摸他、去听他的身体。我们的技能和洞察力不应辜负他们的信任。 医生的人文素养应该是最高的、最为丰富的。 Doctor 这个词来自拉丁语 docere ，本意是 to teach （教、传授）。医师也是教师。我们言传身教；要带徒弟，手把手地传授临床技能。我们还要把科学的防病知识教授给患者。我们医生同行之间也要相互学习和交流，不断提高业务水平。医生不仅要有丰富的专业知识，也应具备丰富的文化知识。写病历、写论文、写科普、写政论，甚至交代病情，都需要文化知识。多读书可改变一个人的气质；天文地理的书，能改变之，医学名著也能改变之。 医生既要有感性，又要有理性。对病人要充满感情，苦其苦，乐其乐。但在医疗工作中却不能感情用事，要理性地看待问题、处理问题。我们还要理性地看待社会问题和医疗改革问题。医护人员是充满社会责任感的群体。在危机面前，勇挑重担，不怕牺牲，无论是面对 SARS ，还是抗震救灾！在医疗改革的不同声音中，那些具有社会责任感的医生，为了一个完善的医疗体制、为了患者利益，为了国家利益，也为了医护人员的利益，不顾个人得失而奔走疾呼。这体现的都是医生的人文素养！ 注：根据本人在北京青年呼吸学者沙龙活动上的发言整理，已刊登在《中华结核和呼吸杂志》。
Digital Humanities Resources Local (Indiana University) Resources Institute for Digital Arts and Humanities IU Digital Library Program Lectures and Discussion Groups DLP Brown Bag Series IDAH Brown Bag Series Metadata Discussion Group Professional Associations Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH, North America) Association for Literary Linguistic Computing (ALLC, Europe) The Society for Digital Humanities / Socit pour l'tude des mdias interactifs (SDH-SEMI, Canada) Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO, umbrella group for the above organizations) TEI Consortium Association for History and Computing Journals Journals Digital Humanities Quarterly Digital Studies / Le champ numrique LLC:The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (the official journal of ACH and ALLC) TEXT Technology: The Journal of Computer Text Processing Computers and the Humanities (1966-2004) CH Working Papers Comparative Literature and Culture Computers and Texts dichtung-digital D-Lib Magazine Electronic Book Review First Monday Game Studies Human IT ImageText The Iowa Review Web Journal of Electronic Publishing Vectors Conferences Digital Humanities Digital Resources for the Humanities and Arts Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Members Meeting Chicago Colloquium for Digital Humanities and Computer Science Online Discussion Lists Humanist TEI-L Blogs The following are blogs by digital humanities scholars Digital Humanities Now Dan Cohen Matthew G. Kirschenbaum Stephen Ramsay Geoffrey Rockwell Stfan Sinclair Clay Spinuzzi Lisa Spiro Melissa Terras Edward Vanhoutte Vika Zafrin Texts A Companion to Digital Humanities (Blackwell, 2004) A Companion to Digital Literary Studies (Blackwell, 2008) Institutes and Centers Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities (IATH), University of Virginia Maryland Institute for Technology and the Humanities (MITH), University of Maryland Centre for Computing in the Humanities (CCH), King's College, London Institute for Digital Arts and Humanities (IDAH), Indiana University Center for Digital Research in the Humanities , University of Nebraska-Lincoln MATRIX, The Center for Humane Arts, Letters Social Sciences Online , Michigan State University The above centers and many, many more are listed in centerNet , an International Network of Digital Humanities Centers. Linguistic Corpora British National Corpus International Corpus of English
标签: 人文
