试论伊壁鸠鲁的精神疾患的认知疗法

伊壁鸠鲁创立的哲学在晚期希腊时期的影响甚至超过了斯多亚派,伊壁鸠鲁及其传人卢克莱修的唯物主义哲学其实是面对人类的肉体和精神疾病而进行的治疗活动,其基本原则在两千后演化为精神治疗术中应用广泛、声名著卓的认识疗法.依据伊壁鸠鲁残篇分析了这种古代精神治疗术的基本原理、实施方法及其在思想史上的重要意义.     

伊壁鸠鲁的政治哲学与现代性问题

与古典政治哲学相比,希腊化时期的政治哲学方向发生了根本转变。伊壁鸠鲁派是其中对现代性影响最深远的一派。伊壁鸠鲁的政治哲学以唯物论为基础,建立了快乐主义伦理学,其政治约定论的目的仅仅是为了保障个人的基本安全,因此自然与礼法之争丧失了古典政治哲学中高贵的神性,而且体现庸俗的计算理性。伊壁鸠鲁思想与现代性的关联体现在霍布斯、马克思和后现代哲人身上。霍布斯继承了伊壁鸠鲁将善等同于快乐,政治德性变成了人追求虚荣的好名。马克思继承了伊壁鸠鲁的启蒙精神,通过批判宗教和社会启蒙来实现个体的自由。后现代哲人继承了伊壁鸠鲁的"自我快乐"和"自我治疗",致使整个社会愈发陷入虚无和颓废中。     

马克思对普鲁塔克的“宗教论战”——马克思《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》2-3解读

马克思《博士论文》附录中对普鲁塔克的宗教论战,在其《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》2-3中有更加具体而详尽的展现。马克思对普鲁塔克的批驳与他对伊壁鸠鲁反宗教立场的肯定相一致。本文旨在通过对《笔记》的研读,弄清楚马克思如何就普鲁塔克的相关文本,有针对性地驳斥普鲁塔克对伊壁鸠鲁学说尤其宗教观的反驳,如何借此突显哲学与宗教的对立及其反对和战胜宗教的合理根据。     

唯物主义无神论者的自由意志与精神超越如何可能?——对马克思博士论文宗教观的一种解读

马克思的博士论文不只洗刷了2000多年来蒙在伊壁鸠鲁哲学上的污名,也因回答了三个问题从而在欧洲启蒙运动和马克思思想发展历程中具有特殊重要的地位:无神论的哲学根据是什么?自由意志的哲学根据是什么?唯物主义如何实现精神超越?     

宁静?抑或自由?——试析伊壁鸠鲁幸福观及其对马克思的影响

伊壁鸠鲁哲学因以幸福为旨归,也被称为幸福论哲学;但又由于他对幸福和快乐的特别解释,而被视为快乐主义,甚至背负享乐主义的恶名.然而,伊壁鸠鲁幸福观突出的特征却是“心神宁静”,快乐在他不过是“身体的无痛和精神的无扰”,而要达到这一目标,就要求将人的心灵从各种束缚中解脱出来.因而,伊壁鸠鲁幸福论最深沉的内核是“自由”.正是在这一点上,本文认为,马克思的幸福观虽然充满实践和行动的激情,但伊壁鸠鲁挣脱必然性而终获自由的观念对他却不无影响.马克思在斗争中体味幸福,并为人类的幸福而创造,但根本目标始终是人的最终解放和自由.     

从伊壁鸠鲁的愤怒到普罗米修斯的誓言——马克思《博士论文》的宗教批判背景分析

在《博士论文》序言中,马克思借普罗米修斯的形象提出以哲学反对宗教,建立人自我意识的自由。那么,马克思为何选择伊壁鸠鲁作为研究对象?这牵涉到西方思想史上一个由来已久的对立:肇始于前苏格拉底自然哲人的哲学与宗教的对立。此对立中经苏格拉底事件后,哲人的态度开始呈现两种路向:柏拉图亚里士多德式的和伊壁鸠鲁式的。其后西塞罗和普鲁塔克以及近代启蒙哲学对伊壁鸠鲁的批评或接续则体现了这两种路向的对立。马克思接续了伊壁鸠鲁的立场,摒弃了柏亚路向的遮遮掩掩,以启蒙斗士的姿态力主反对宗教的束缚,为人类争取自由。     

伊壁鸠鲁的快乐主义

公元前一世纪有一座大理石的石碑上,刻着表述伊壁鸠鲁伦理思想的铭言:“死没有什么可怕,神没有什么可怕。能够忍受痛苦,就能得到幸福。”这几句铭言确实概括了伊壁鸠鲁的伦理思想。 伊壁鸠鲁继承发展了德谟克利特的伦理思想,认为伦理学的目的是在理性指引下,求得身体的健康和心灵的安宁。在伊壁鸠鲁看来,幸福或快乐则是伦理学的出发点。他说:“我们认为幸福生活是我们天生的最高的善,我们的一切取舍都从快乐出发;我们的最终目的乃是得到快乐。而以感触为标准来判断一切的善。”(《古希腊罗马哲学》第367页)因为伊壁鸠鲁从幸福的角度去考察道德,把快乐作为最高的善和判断道德行     

两种生活方式之争:德性与快乐——对普鲁塔克的伊壁鸠鲁批判的一个考察

在古代,哲学究其本身被当作一种生活选择,一种以"共和德性"为主导的生活方式的践行。伊壁鸠鲁通过对传统生活方式的价值反思,教会我们如何重新认识自然和生命的存在,以"个体快乐"的心态应对生命中的每一时刻。这种对传统生活理念的颠覆引起了众多的质疑和批判。罗马时期的普鲁塔克为了重塑共和德性的基本精神,展开了对伊壁鸠鲁个体之乐的激烈批评。这是两种生活方式之间的争论,无论是以"德性"为主导的生活方式,还是"快乐"式的生活方式,都从根本上体现了不同生活境况下人们所理解的生活价值取向的基本可能性。     

马克思对“异化”问题的最初探索——《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》与《博士论文》中的“时间”理论

研究《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》的后期,通过学习黑格尔的逻辑学、自然哲学,马克思重塑了时间概念,并由此产生用黑格尔概念体系重构伊壁鸠鲁原子论的设想。其《博士论文》便实现了这一设想:通过运用黑格尔实体—偶性论重构伊壁鸠鲁"时间是偶性的偶性"命题,马克思构建了自己的时间—实体理论:时间是实体的偶性之偶性,而偶性之偶性本身也是实体。马克思将这一理论命名为"异化"论,并指出人与其感官对象的"分裂"结构即影象—感官论是"异化"论的必然结果。     

马克思对伊壁鸠鲁哲学原则的阐发和继承

伊壁鸠鲁借由偏斜原则打破了一切命运必然性的束缚,确立了人的自我意识的最高神性,并建立了人的自由的、被神化了的个体性。马克思在两个方面继承了伊壁鸠鲁的哲学原则:一是把人的解放视为逐步消除包括人和物的依赖关系在内的一切前提性定在的历史性过程;二是把个人的"自由个体性"——即可以凭借自由意志来自我决定和自由抉择他们的生存状态的那种抽象可能性本身——视为人的解放的目标。     

Epicurean Hedonism as Qualitative Hedonism

Epicurus’ theory of what is good for a person is hedonistic: only pleasure has intrinsic value. Critics object that Epicurus is committed to advocating sensualist excess, since hedonism seems both to imply that more pleasure is always of some good for you, and to recommend even debauched, sensual kinds of pleasure. However, Epicurus can respond to this objection much like J. S. Mill responds to the objection that hedonism is a “doctrine worthy only of swine”. I argue that Epicurus’ hedonism is a version of qualitative hedonism on which static pleasure is intrinsically superior to other kinds of pleasure. I also argue that Epicurus conceives of pleasure as a phenomenal or felt quality of experience, and that this is compatible with his troublesome claim that there is an upper limit to pleasure and wellbeing.     

Deprivation and the See-saw of Death

Abstract

Epicurus argued that death can be neither good nor bad because it involves neither pleasure nor pain. This paper focuses on the deprivation account as a response to this Hedonist Argument. Proponents of the deprivation account hold that Epicurus’s argument fails even if death involves no painful or pleasurable experiences and even if the hedonist ethical system, which holds that pleasure and pain are all that matter ethically, is accepted. I discuss four objections that have been raised against the deprivation account and argue that this response to Epicurus’s argument is successful once it has been sufficiently clarified.     

Epicurus and B. F. Skinner: In search of the good life

This paper examines similarities in the works of Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, and B. F. Skinner, a behavioral psychologist. They both were empiricists who argued in favor of the lawfulness of behavior while maintaining that random events were included within those laws. They both devoted much effort to describing how individuals could live effective, rewarding and pleasurable lives. They both emphasized simple and natural pleasures (or reinforcers) and the importance of combining personal pleasures with actions that benefit friends and community. They both opposed punishment and all aversive measures used by governments and religions to control behaviors. And both created utopias: a real community, The Garden, where Epicurus lived with his followers, and a fictional one, Walden Two, by Skinner. We consider how a combination of the ideas of Epicurus and Skinner can contribute to their common goal of helping people to live better lives.     

伊壁鸠鲁的快乐论及其伦理反思

伊壁鸠鲁的快乐论认为,快乐是天生的最高的善,理性是快乐的工具,哲学是医治心灵痛苦的良药,美德是获得快乐的手段。他的思想曾一度受到普遍欢迎,但其缺陷也是显而易见的,其快乐论,对于当代中国青年人生价值观教育极具警示意义。     

论中医的辨证论治与肿瘤的分子靶向治疗

辨证论治是中医认识和治疗疾病的基本原则,“同病异治”和“异病同治”是辨证论治的精神实质。恶性肿瘤的分子靶向治疗在很多方面都贯彻了“辨证论治”观念,将所辨的证候落实到受体、基因和各种调控系统上。尽管两者理论基础完全不同,但都强调以患者为中心的综合治疗和个体化治疗理念,对建立正确的临床思维非常重要。     

脊柱转移瘤个体化综合治疗中的临床决策

脊柱转移是恶性肿瘤最重要的并发症,其个体化综合治疗应遵循循证医学原则,根据患者机体状况、肿瘤病理类型、临床分期和发展趋势等,优化多学科综合治疗手段,努力做到临床决策的科学性,以期最大幅度地提高患者临床疗效及改善患者生活质量。     

肝移植的伦理学问题

肝脏移植和其它器官移植一起实现了人类长期以来渴望生命再生的梦想,并成为终末期肝病的有效治疗方法。器官移植也面对许多伦理道德方面的难题。供体,特别是活体器官的摘取,受体的选择等,都受到社会道德观的制约。从伦理道德角度来分析如何制定相关的法律法规,成为当前社会关注的热点。从受体的利益、人体科研的道德规范以及相关制度的伦理学要求等方面,较为详细的阐述肝移植伦理学的基本原则。     

Happiness in the Garden of Epicurus

Epicurus was a philosopher who lived in Greece in the 3rd century B.C. Like his contemporaries, he was much concerned with the question of how to live a good life. In his view the Chief Good is to decrease pain and increase pleasure. Though Epicurus is reputed for advocating the pursuit of refined sensorial pleasures, he recognized the need for deferring gratification or enduring pain. He advised his followers to lead a modest and contemplative life in friendly communities. His advice can be characterized as ‘serene hedonism’. This paper explains that position and considers its applicability for the present day. It concludes that Epicureanism was quite accurate in describing the conditions of happiness and that he offered valuable guidelines in dealing with hardship and difficult emotional content. His ideas that happiness is the same as the absence of pain and that one should withdraw from society are less fortunate. It made him assume that happiness automatically follows if one is in the right state of mind, and that there is no need to actively seek interaction with the environment for the betterment of the circumstances of life. However, Epicurus’ advice might have been a good option for his contemporaries given the societal turmoil in his times.

The advice of the wise

The demand for happiness advice is vast and many different thinkers have offered their views. This special issue presents a cross section of happiness counseling through the ages and considers the advice by classic Chinese philosophers, Epicurus, Schopenhauer, as well as contemporary New Age thinkers and self-help authors. The papers follow three leading questions: 1) What is recommended for leading a happy life? 2) How does this advice fit in the worldview of the author and into a social, cultural and historical context? 3) Are the recommendations in line with what is known about the conditions of happiness? There are common themes in advice for a happy life but also much contradiction, and some honoured philosophers offer advice that can harm happiness if it is taken to heart by present day readers.