It would have been a perfect symmetry because last time we quoted Paul Ricoeur to the effect that these authors, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, were--and this is Ricoeur's word--"masters."

这里其实是很平衡的,因为上次我们提到保罗，里克尔的时候大意是说这些作者，包括马克思，尼采和弗洛伊德，按里克尔的说法，都是大师“

耶鲁公开课 - 文学理论导论课程节选

I thought of Ed Dunkel's ghost on Times Square. I was delirious.

我想起了埃迪·邓克尔那在时代广场游荡的鬼魂。

耶鲁公开课 - 1945年后的美国小说课程节选

Now last time, following Ricoeur, I mentioned Marx, Nietzsche and Freud as key figures in the sort of secondary development that somehow inaugurates theory, and then I added Darwin.

上次继里克尔之后，我提到了马克思，尼采和弗洛伊德,把他们作为推动初始理论进一步发展的关键人物，之后我加上了达尔文。

耶鲁公开课 - 文学理论导论课程节选

Foucault couldn't possibly allow for that because plainly the whole texture of their discourse would be undermined by introducing the notion that it's okay to be a master, and yet Ricoeur feels that these figures dominate modern thought as masters.

福柯不会认同因为,这样的话他们话语的整个结构就会被破坏,如果引入可以作为大师的观点的话，同时,里克尔感觉这些人支配着现代大师的思想。

耶鲁公开课 - 文学理论导论课程节选