歷史性

歷史性

Chinese

		history	sex; nature; suffix corresponding to ‑ness or ‑ity
trad. (歷史性)		歷史	性
simp. (历史性)		历史	性

Pronunciation

• Mandarin

  (Pinyin): lìshǐxìng

  (Zhuyin): ㄌㄧˋ ㄕˇ ㄒㄧㄥˋ

• Cantonese (Jyutping): lik⁶ si² sing³
• Min Nan (POJ): le̍k-sú-sèng

---

• Mandarin
  • (Standard Chinese)⁺
    • Pinyin: lìshǐxìng
    • Zhuyin: ㄌㄧˋ ㄕˇ ㄒㄧㄥˋ
    • Gwoyeu Romatzyh: lihshyyshinq
    • Tongyong Pinyin: lìshǐhsìng
    • IPA ^(key): /li˥˩ ʂʐ̩˨˩˦꜕꜖꜖ ɕiŋ˥˩/
• Cantonese
  • (Standard Cantonese, Guangzhou)⁺
    • Jyutping: lik⁶ si² sing³
    • Yale: lihk sí sing
    • Cantonese Pinyin: lik⁹ si² sing³
    • Guangdong Romanization: lig⁶ xi² xing³
    • IPA ^(key): /lɪk˨ siː˧˥ sɪŋ˧/
• Min Nan
  • (Hokkien)
    • Pe̍h-ōe-jī: le̍k-sú-sèng
    • Tâi-lô: li̍k-sú-sìng
    • Phofsit Daibuun: legswsexng
    • IPA (Xiamen): /liɪk˦꜔꜕ su˥˧꜓꜓ ɕiɪŋ˨˩/
    • IPA (Quanzhou): /liɪk˨˦꜕꜕ su˥˥˦꜕꜓ ɕiɪŋ˦˩/
    • IPA (Zhangzhou): /liɪk˩˨˩꜕꜖ su˥˧꜓꜓ ɕiɪŋ˨˩/
    • IPA (Taipei): /liɪk˦꜔꜕ su˥˧꜓꜓ ɕiɪŋ˩˩/
    • IPA (Kaohsiung): /liɪk˦꜔꜕ su˦˩꜓꜓ ɕiɪŋ˨˩/

Adjective

歷史性

1. historic; of historic significance

Noun

歷史性

1. (philosophy) historical nature

   • 哲學上的「唯理論」和「經驗論」都不懂得認識的歷史性或辯證性，雖然各有片面的真理（對於唯物的唯理論和經驗論而言，非指唯心的唯理論和經驗論），但在認識論的全體上則都是錯誤的。 [MSC, trad.]
     哲学上的“唯理论”和“经验论”都不懂得认识的历史性或辩证性，虽然各有片面的真理（对于唯物的唯理论和经验论而言，非指唯心的唯理论和经验论），但在认识论的全体上则都是错误的。 [MSC, simp.]

     From: 1937, 毛澤東 (Mao Zedong), 《實踐論》 (On Practice), 毛澤東選集 (1991). English translation based on the Foreign Languages Press edition

     Zhéxué shàng de “wéilǐlùn” hé “jīngyànlùn” dōu bù dǒngde rènshi de lìshǐxìng huò biànzhèngxìng, suīrán gè yǒu piànmiàn de zhēnlǐ (duìyú wéiwù de wéilǐlùn hé jīngyànlùn éryán, fēi zhǐ wéixīn de wéilǐlùn hé jīngyànlùn), dàn zài rènshilùn de quántǐ shàng zé dōu shì cuòwù de. [Pinyin]

     In philosophy, neither “rationalism” nor “empiricism” understands the historical or the dialectical nature of knowledge, and although each of these schools contains one aspect of the truth (here I am referring to materialist, not to idealist, rationalism and empiricism), both are wrong on the theory of knowledge as a whole.