從Amartya Sen的書說起： The Argumentative Indian : writings on Indian history, culture, and identity 慣於爭鳴的印度人 ；Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers/ Amartya Sen

Nobel Prize
Bicycles are not a common tool in economic science, but Amartya Sen's bicycle played a role in his research.
A large part of his work is concerned with the conditions of the most impoverished members of society and how these can be improved. In a study on differences between baby girls and boys, Sen employed an assistant to weigh the children. Problems arose when the children did not want to weighed and bit the assistant. The episode ended with Amartya Sen bicycling through the countryside of West Bengal, weighing the children himself.
Amartya Sen was awarded the Prize in Economic Sciences in 1998 for his studies of social choice, welfare measurement and poverty research.
Read more about his research: https://bit.ly/2wk7RiJ
#WorldBicycleDay




India and China : interactions through Buddhism and diplomacy ; a collection ...

By Prabodh Chandra Bagchi



https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=MB4CHPi7dycC&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages



王邦雄教授在【紀念師覺月教授】2010，提到Amartya Sen (阿馬蒂亞 沈)是 Nalanda Mentor Group 的主持人，The Argumentative Indian 翻譯成 【慣於爭鳴的印度人】

現在的中文翻譯，各說各的，【慣於爭鳴的印度人】譯者 : 劉建不知道PRABODH CHANDRA BAGCHI 叫師覺月--著【 INDIA AND CHINA A THOUSAND YEARS OF CULTURAL RELATIONS】，將 Identity 翻譯成"特性"。  Amartya Sen 在The Argumentative Indian 的第8章【中國與印度】力排西方以宗教為主來界定各"文明"，他談的是中國與印度在非宗教的交流，網路上更有他用經濟學/聯合國的"生活品質指標和中印制度的不同，針貶印度的缺失之學術論文。 慣於爭鳴的印度人 作者:   [印度]阿馬蒂亞·森 出版社:上海三聯書店 副標題:印度人的歷史文化與身份論集 譯者 : 劉建 出版年: 2007-12-01 頁數: 330 定價: 內容簡介  · · · · · · 印度是一個極端多樣化的國家，擁有眾多不同的追求，大相徑庭的信仰，判然有異的風俗和異彩紛呈的觀點。《慣於爭鳴的印度人》是諾貝爾獎得主、經濟學家阿馬蒂亞·森的一部發人深省的論文選集。該書從印度由來已久的爭鳴傳統這一角度出發，提綱挈領地表明了了解當代印度—— 包括其生機勃勃的民主制度——的必要性。 爭鳴傳統不僅影響了印度文學、文化、政治、科學與數學發展的歷史，而且還影響了構威其宗教多樣性之基礎的知識多元主義。知識多元主義包括屬於印度教哲學範圍之內的非正統見解，也包括印度的其他宗教經驗，從佛教、耆那教和無神論在早期的盛行，到與外來宗教尤其是伊斯蘭教的具有建設性的遭遇，如此等等，不一而足。要想理解當代印度所面臨的政治、社會、文化與經濟挑戰，就應當充分認識其多元主義的、相互作用的和生生不息的傳統。 森認為，通過互動進程，特別是在後殖民世界，外來觀點也會對民族本體認知產生影響。西方往往將印度視為一個具有無窮無盡的精神性和無緣無故的神秘主義的地方。然而，印度具有懷疑主義和追求理性的悠久傳統，除了在數學、天文學、語言學、醫學和政治經濟學等世俗領域的貢獻之外，或許還擁有所有文明古國之中規模最為龐大的不可知論和無神論文獻。森還論述了印度豐富的知識遺產的方方面面，包括從公元前四世紀和前三世紀的僑底利耶與阿育王直至十六世紀的阿克巴所概述的經世治國哲學：印度在公元第一千紀與中國之密切關係的歷史及其至今依然存續的重要意義：印度古老而嚴謹的曆法：薩蒂亞吉特·拉伊的電影：具有遠見卓識的詩人羅賓德羅納特·泰戈爾與莫漢達斯·甘地之間關於印度過去、現在和未來的辯論。 森認為，理解和利用印度豐富的爭鳴傳統，對於印度民主制度的成功，對於捍衛其世俗政治，對於消除各種與階級、種姓、性別及社群有關的不平等現象，對於南亞次大陸的和平事業，都是至關重要的。 本書是諾貝爾獎得主、經濟學家阿馬蒂亞·森的一部發人深省的論文選集。該書從印度由來已久的爭鳴傳統這一角度出發，提綱挈領地表明了了解當代印度——包括其生機勃勃的民主制度——的必要性。全書分直言與異議、文化與交流、政治與抗爭、政治與抗爭、理性與身份四部分內容。 中譯本序 序 梵文語詞變音標誌方法 第一編直言與異議 一、慣於爭鳴的印度人 二、不平等、不穩定與不平之鳴 _一、印度：大與小 四、移民社群與世界 第二編文化與交流 五、泰戈爾與他的印度 六、我們的文化，他們的文化 七、印度的傳統與西方的想像 八、中國與印度 第三編政治與抗爭 九、與命運之神的幽會 十、印度的階級 十一、女人與男人 十二、印度與原子彈 第四編理性與身份 十三、理性的範疇 十四、世俗主義與不滿因素 十五、透過曆法看印度 十六、印度人的身份 註釋 人名索引 總索引 譯後記 舉報 作者簡介  · · · · · · 阿馬蒂亞·森（Amartya Sen）是1998年諾貝爾經濟學獎獲得者,也是第一位獲此殊榮的亞洲人。他1933年生於印度，現在仍然保持印度國籍。他1953年在印度完成大學學業後赴劍橋大學就讀，1959年取得博士學位。森曾執教於倫敦經濟學院、牛津大學、哈佛大學等著名學府，現任劍橋大學三一學院院長。森的學術思想繼承了從亞里士多德到亞當·斯密等古典思想家的遺產，他對全世界各地遭受苦難的人們深切關心，享有“經濟學的良心”的美譽。森的思想已經產生了重大影響，聯合國出版的《人類發展報告》就是按照他的理論框架設計的。1972年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主肯尼思?阿羅認為，“在社會選擇、福利經濟學基礎理論、更廣泛的分配倫理學以及與這些領域相關的測量問題上，森是一位無可懷疑的大師。” 阿馬蒂亞·森的代表作《以自由看待發展》已於2002年由中國人民大學出版社出版，最新力作《身份認同與暴力》也將於2007年由中國人民大學出版社出版。 目錄  · · · · · · 中譯本序 序 梵文語詞變音標誌方法 第一編直言與異議 一、慣於爭鳴的印度人 二、不平等、不穩定與不平之鳴 三、印度：大與小 四、移民社群與世界 第二編文化與交流 五、泰戈爾與他的印度 六、我們的文化，他們的文化 七、印度的傳統與西方的想像 八、中國與印度 第三編政治與抗爭 九、與命運之神的幽會 十、印度的階級 十一、女人與男人 十二、印度與原子彈 第四編理性與身份 十三、理性的範疇 十四、世俗主義與不滿因素 十五、透過曆法看印度 十六、印度人的身份 註釋 人名索引 總索引 譯後記 The argumentative Indian : writings on Indian history, culture, and identity / Amartya Sen

New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, ©2005 Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers Amartya Sen (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006) 224 pp., $24.95 cloth, $15.95 paper, Kwame Anthony Appiah (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), 256 pp., $23.95 cloth, $15.95 paper June 1, 2007 Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny Michael Blake (reviewer)These two books are the inaugural releases in Norton's Issues of Our Time series, but they are linked by much more than this fact. Each is a measured attack on the cultural separatism prevalent in many academic and policy circles. According to the cultural separatism thesis, cultures or nations are morally central groups in the world; membership in such groups is both ethically significant and explanatorily powerful; and the borders of cultural and national groups must be preserved against outside influence. This thesis is rejected by both Appiah and Sen, in subtly different ways. Each book, moreover, is extraordinarily personal. Appiah and Sen illustrate their theoretical points with reference to their own experiences and the experiences of their families. The books represent excellence in philosophical reasoning, but only philosophers whose relationship to these issues is more than simply academic could have produced these works. Sen's argument focuses primarily on the ascription of identity. Individual membership in identity-creating groups such as culture—and, in many recent discussions, religion—is often taken by observers to have an explanatory significance. We tend to think we can know a great deal about a person's beliefs in politics and morality, for example, if we know their cultural background. Cultural activists, moreover, frequently insist that this ascription is normative, rather than simply descriptive; there is, on this account, a single proper way of being Muslim or Arab, and it has implications across all strands of a human life. This assumption is not simply inaccurate, writes Sen, but deadly; it insists upon a single form of identification, making all other forms of diversity sources of disagreement and potential violence. Sen defends, instead, a notion of "diverse diversities" (p. 13), by which we have a plurality of forms of identification, both within and between the large-scale cultural and religious markers we tend to emphasize. Being Muslim, on this account, should not be misinterpreted as a marker defining all aspects of human life. Muslim reactionaries, cultural separatists, and academics such as Samuel Huntington all come under fire for making this mistake of distorting human diversity through a false and damaging simplicity. Appiah shares this concern for complexity in identification, but combines it with a more extensive account of how our moral duties might change when we encounter difference. The assumption of cultural separation, he argues, underlies both the easy, moral indifference of the cultural relativist and the arrogance of the imperialist. These two approaches to difference—making difference sacred, or imposing sameness through force—rest on both epistemic and moral mistakes. What is needed, Appiah suggests, is a serious attempt to learn how to speak to one another across difference, and much of his book is devoted to explaining both the difficulty and the necessity of this process. This fresh start, moreover, will have to teach us both how to speak and how to disagree across cultures. What emerges by the end of Appiah's book is a conviction that most of this process will happen without the help of philosophical reason. In the end, learning to live with difference is more an arational process of acclimatization—of getting used to one another—than a philosophical process of rational argumentation. We must ultimately seek acceptance and familiarity even with those whose beliefs we reject. There is much in these books that is fascinating and refreshing, as they reject the separatist thesis frequently found in discussions of multicultural politics and cultural rights. Even more interesting for a student of international relations is the effect of such arguments upon the conventional analyses of international law and sovereignty. Many such analyses rely on a notion of coherent social nations, or ways of life, as the foundational units of international politics; we may think of John Rawls's concept of "peoples" in this context. The arguments of Sen and Appiah make the ascription of cultural separateness, and the normative valuation of cultural groupings, that much more complex. As such, their arguments represent a serious addition to the literature on international ethics. If the easy linkage between state self-determination and cultural survival is rejected, the precise contours of the rights and immunities of state agencies may require considerably more thought. These books, however, might be better read as introducing a research agenda than a final series of conclusions. Both books function best when understood as attempts to rebut the assumptions of contemporary thinking. Their positive analyses, in contrast, remain somewhat underdeveloped. Sen, for example, does not develop the notion of "diverse diversities" to any significant degree. Identifying this phenomenon is useful, but we need more guidance in understanding just how diverse we want our diversities to be. Some ascriptive forms of identity will surely have some impact upon what other forms of identity might be adopted: identifying myself as a philosophical liberal, for example, will likely preclude me from also identifying with a theocratic religious order. Similarly, if I am both Catholic and homosexual, there will be—at the very least—an internal pressure and tension from holding these two identities. It would have been helpful for Sen to provide a more complex analysis of when and how we are right to take some forms of identity as having priority over other forms. The easy assumption that we can explain everything about ourselves with reference to a single strand of identity is surely wrong, as Sen notes. But the fact that some forms of identity determine or shape other forms of identity must also be acknowledged and understood; we cannot ignore the ways in which some of our identities do, and must, take priority over others. A more complex and accurate account of cultural identity, then, would neither always accept nor always reject the idea that some forms of identity will dominate others. Sen is quite right to reject the simple account on which some forms of identity are inevitably dominant; a more complex account of identity, however, would nonetheless accept that some forms of identity place pressure on other acceptable forms of identification. Sen paves the way for this more complex account, but it remains as yet undeveloped. Appiah's argument, similarly, might stand more in need of amplification than amendment. His solution to the difficulties of speaking across difference is attractive; we should seek to become used to one another's foibles rather than solve all disagreements through force or argument. The difficulty, however, is that we still need some guidance about what sorts of differences we should seek to accommodate. To know everything is not always—or should not be, at any rate—to forgive much of anything. There are some sorts of difference whose evil we ought to keep sharp and focused in our minds; we would be wrong, for example, to lump political fascism together with religious difference, as an example of the sort of difference we should simply cease to find unusual. Appiah would agree, of course; he is no relativist. The difficulty in this case lies only in finding a principle suitable to determine what sorts of difference we ought to normalize. Appiah may be right that toleration across cultures will not be achieved by philosophy; surely, however, philosophy will have something useful to say about how to determine the sorts of toleration we ought and ought not to seek. All this suggests only that the books ought to be taken as introducing a new direction in research rather than a settled position. Both books are admirable and valuable additions to our literature on global ethics in an age of cultural diversities. —Michael Blake, University of Washington Related Resources: Amartya Sen (People) Kwame Anthony Appiah (People) 身份与暴力——命运的幻象 作　　者： （印）森　著，李风华　等译 出 版 社： 中国人民大学出版社 出版时间： 2009-10-1 字　　数： 168000 版　　次： 1 页　　数： 206 印刷时间： 2009-10-1 内容简介 把人们渺小化的可怕后果就是本书的主题。我 们将重新审视和评价某些广为讨论的主题，比如经济全球化、政治上的多元文化主义、历史领域中的后殖民主义、社会生活中的民族性、宗教上的原教旨主义和全球 范围内的恐怖主义等。只有承认我们生活中关系的多样性，并且作为这个世界的共同居民而理性地思维，而不是硬把人们塞入一个个狭窄的“盒子”中，也许才有可 能实现当代世界的和平。当务之急是需要清晰地认识到我们有自由确定我们事务的优先次序。与此相关，我们还要充分地认识到理性地发表意见——不管是在一国之 内还是在世界范围内——的地位与作用。  作者简介 阿马蒂亚·森1998年诺贝尔经济学奖得主，曾任剑桥大学三一学院院长，现任哈佛大学教授。其著作包括《以自由看待发展》、《理性与自由》（本书于2006年由中国人民大学出版社出版）、《论经济不平等》和《好辩的印度人》等。  目录 第一章　幻象的暴力 　对相互竞争的社会联系的认可 　约束与自由 　说服他人 　对选择与责任的否定 　文明的禁闭 　超越宗教 　穆斯林与知识的多样性 　混乱之焰 第二章　理解身份认同 　身份无关论与理性的白痴 　多重关系与社会环境 　对立身份与非对立身份 　选择与约束 　社区身份与选择的可能性 　优先性与理性 第三章　文明的界限 　单一视野与貌似深刻 　文明解释的两个困难 　论把印度视为印度教文明 　论所谓西方价值观的独特性 　民主的全球根基 　西方科学与全球历史 　拙劣的概括与模糊的历史 第四章　宗教联系与穆斯林历史 　宗教身份和文化多样性 　穆斯林宽容和多样性 　非宗教性考虑和多样化的优先性 　数学、科学和知识的历史 　多重身份和当代政治 　反对恐怖主义与认识身份 　恐怖主义与宗教 　穆斯林身份的多样性 第五章　西方与反西方 　殖民化思想的辩证法 　亚洲价值观与一些更小的主题 　殖民主义和非洲 　原教旨主义和西方中心性 第六章　文化与束缚 　虚构的真理和实际的政策 　韩国与加纳 　日本的经历和公共政策 　宽广视野中的文化 　多元文化主义和文化自由 　学校、理性和信仰 第七章　全球化与抗议 　抗议、准确性和公共理性 　批评、抗议和全球团结 　知识界的团结 　地方性对全球性 　经济全球化和不平等 　全球贫困和全球公平 　更加公平的可能性 　忽略与责任 　贫穷、暴力和义愤 　意识和身份认同 第八章　多元文化主义与自由 　英国的成就 　多元单一文化主义的问题 　理性的优先性 　甘地的论点 第九章　思考的自由 　暴力的滋生 　高级理论的低级运用 　单一性幻象的惩罚 　全球性抗议的作用 　一个可能的世界 注释 人名索引 主题索引

The Argumentative Indian is a book written by Nobel Prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen. It is a collection of essays that discuss India's history and identity, focusing on the traditions of public debate and intellectual pluralism. Martha Nussbaum says the book "demonstrates the importance of public debate in Indian traditions generally."^{[1](pp47–48)}

The Argumentative Indian has brought together a selection of writings from Sen that outline the need to understand contemporary India in the light of its long argumentative tradition. The understanding and use of this argumentative tradition are critically important, Sen argues, for the success of India's democracy, the defence of its secular politics, the removal of inequalities related to class, caste, gender and community, and the pursuit of sub-continental peace.

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1Contents
• 2Criticism
• 3References
• 4External links

Contents[edit]

The book takes the form of four sections containing linked essays: "Voice and Heterodoxy", "Culture and Communication", "Politics and Protest", "Reason and Identity". The first section looks at the general culture of pluralistic debate within India, dating back to Buddha and kings such as Ashoka. The second section seeks to restore the reputation of Rabindranath Tagore as an intellectual polymath, combining spiritual and political ideas, and explores India's relationship to other cultures, including the West and China, especially the peaceful and intellectually rewarding cross-fertilising relationship between the two great Asian cultures. The third section looks at conflicts of class and criticises inequalities in Indian society and arguments that have been used to justify them. Finally, the book explores modern cultures of secularism and liberalism in an Indian context.^[2]