论和合学“自己讲”、“讲自己”的史观

和合学的"自己讲"以时间、空间、逻辑的"三大创新"为基础."讲自己"是对"自己讲"的独立自主、开拓创新精神的进一步深化.中国哲学三大创新标志的发现是"讲自己"的落实步骤和理论支撑,也是和合学深植于中国哲学精髓的表现.和合就是和谐,是内涵丰富的哲学范畴;和合史观坚持实事求是,符合时代精神,具有极强的哪生命力和巨大的现实意义,为建构和谐社会、和谐世界贡献了自己的绵薄之力.     

自己讲自己——汉语哲学的登场、进路与前景

汉语哲学是中国哲学追求本真自我的一个面向,其工作是基于哲学与语言的文化通约性、语言的世界观内涵与哲学功能,通过"让哲学说汉语",来建构中国哲学"自己讲自己"的哲学范型。汉语哲学登场的方位、景观与状貌需要从中国哲学的当代转进来辨识。哲学话语构造和语言哲学分析是对汉语哲学展开研究的两种基本进路。汉语哲学有望为中国当代哲学创建树立一个良好典范。为此,它还应进一步强化自己的主体意识、问题意识和创造能力。     

“进化唯物主义”献疑

近年来,有的同志在研究中国近代哲学中,提出“进化唯物主义”的观点。这对于在哲学史研究中冲破教条主义的束缚,克服中国近代哲学史研究的一般化,深入探讨中国近代资产阶级哲学的特点,都是有作用的。     

20世纪中国哲学的历史分期:学着讲、照着讲、接着讲

冯友兰先生在《新理学》开头就说 :此书“是‘接着’宋明以来底理学讲底 ,而不是‘照着’宋明以来底理学讲底”。冯先生在《中国现代哲学史》中又说 :“新的现代化的中国哲学 ,只能是用近代逻辑学的成就 ,分析中国传统哲学中的概念 ,使那些似乎是含混不清的概念明确起来 ,这就是‘接着讲’与‘照着讲’的分别。” (冯友兰 :《中国现代哲学史》 ,广东人民出版社 1 999年版 ,第 2 0 0页 )张立文教授也在《中国人民大学学报》 2 0 0 0年第 2期上发表了题为《中国哲学 :从“照着讲”、“接着讲”、到“自己讲”》的文章。笔者受冯、张两先生的启…     

略论新理学─—关于接着新理学讲的几点思考

引言：接着讲与创造的诠释新理学一开始就标明是“接着”程朱理学讲而不是“照着”讲,那么,从方法的意义上,此接着讲究竟有什么含义呢？冯友兰对于其接着讲的思路,有一个逻辑的说明。冯认为,哲学是形式的释义,只是“以。心观大全”,只讲事物各有其理,而不研究各个理的具体内容（属于科学）,因而古今哲学不能有日新月异的变化。新哲学不可能超出前人的“大致轮廓”,只能更“完备精密”而已,此所谓“完备精密”,即在于思之能力即逻辑的进步。所以,冯友兰说：“近代化的中国哲学,只能用近代逻辑学的成就,分析中国传统哲学中的概…     

“照着讲”、“接着讲”与“对着讲”:对待实践美学的三种进路

实践美学在当代中国的出场具有重要的理论和历史意义.我们认为针对旧实践美学可以有三种进路,即"照着讲"、"接着讲"和"对着讲"."照着讲"由于太机械,所以遭摒弃.目前中国学界对待实践美学主要的就是"接着讲"和"对着讲"."接着讲"的理论形态就是所谓的"新实践美学","对着讲"的理论形态就是所谓的"后实践美学".新实践美学和后实践美学都对旧实践美学的局限进行了批判并进行了自己的理论创新.但新实践美学局限于旧实践美学内部的改造、发展和完善导致它并不能真正地克服旧实践美学的固有缺陷.与旧实践美学"对着讲"的后实践美学完全冲破了旧实践美学的局限,并在自己的理论建设上取得重大成果.杨春时的主体间性的后实践美学建构,在众多的后实践美学理论中独树一帜,代表了中国美学走出古典,获得现代性内涵的美学新方向.     

马克思“新唯物主义”哲学视野中的哲学

一哲学是一种世界观的理论体系,马克思主义的“新唯物主义”是一种新的唯物主义世界观。对于从事哲学研究的人,特别是对于马克思主义者来说,这似乎是个一般性的常识。然而,最近几年来的中国哲学界,有一些人,其中也包括某些从事马克思主义哲学研究的人,却试图对这个所谓的常识性观点发起挑战,倡导哲学应回归到它的本来含义,将爱智慧视作是哲学的本性,“哲学即是智慧之学”,哲学教学的目的应是“转识成智”,即将人们所掌握的知识转化成智慧。尽管在时下的中国哲学界,这还只是部分人的声音,但它具有渐趋增强的趋势。从表面上看,它似乎关涉的只…     

关于“四宗罪”的评析与比较哲学研究的方法论问题

本文选译自旅美学者牟博教授为其发起并主持的“戴维森哲学与中国哲学的建设性互动”专题研究项目撰写的主旨导言。作者从一个独特的角度,即着重通过对比较哲学研究所经常被责难的所谓“四宗罪”的深入辨析和重新评判,而对比较哲学研究的一般方法论问题提出了卓有见地的观点和设想,对于当今中国哲学和比较哲学研究具有很强的针对性和重要的指导借鉴意义。     

佛教无专门的“通俗讲经”说——以斋讲为中心

长期以来,学术界一直有所谓“通俗讲经”一说。不过,就唐五代时期的僧讲、俗讲和斋讲三种讲经来看,僧讲是安居月对僧人的传法讲经,俗人不得参与。俗讲是在三长月举行的以劝人输财为目的的佛教讲经法会,只要能达到目的,讲经的内容和方式并不固定。斋讲是僧人受斋食后应施主之请的讲经,按照佛在世时即制订的规定,要如法当机。因此,佛教没有专门的“通俗讲经”。所谓俗讲是通俗讲经的说法,本无的据。     

“朱熹思想与现代社会”国际学术研讨会综述

由中国哲学史学会、四川师范大学等单位联合举办的“朱熹思想与现代社会”国际学术研讨会于2005年10月25日至28日在四川师范大学召开。来自美国、韩国、巴西等国和中国内地、台湾和香港地区的专家学者80余人出席了会议。与会学者对朱熹哲学、理学、经学等思想,对进一步深入开展朱熹研究的途径、方法和新的思路展开了讨论。现将讨论的主要观点综述如下。1.对朱熹哲学的新解存在和价值的关系问题是当代哲学争论的一个重要问题。有学者在发言中指出,与当代西方分析哲学认为存在和价值是绝然不同的观点相反,朱子用“所以然”与“所当然”表示存…     

"中国马克思主义哲学"理论体系的实存应予肯定--兼答徐素华先生

徐素华先生文章把我提出的“中国马克思主义哲学”等同于他所说的“党的指导思想形态”,“在中国的马克思主义哲学”等同于他所说的“学术研究形态”,这不符合我的本意。“马克思主义哲学合法性问题”的讨论确实存在。“中国马克思主义哲学”是在中国实践中学习、运用,在总结实践经验、发扬中国优秀哲学文化、升华人民群众智慧的基础上发展了的马克思主义哲学。它是中国哲学的一个现代形态。它既是一个创新的哲学理论体系,又是党的指导思想的哲学基础。     

Chinese Research in Medieval Philosophy: Retrospects and Prospects

The Chinese study of medieval philosophy has undergone an extraordinary historical process, and it has made great advances in the last 40 years. This paper provides a retrospective analysis of the pioneering Chinese scholars, both traditional and modern, who have played significant roles in the establishment and development of this historical field of inquiry. It pays particular attention to the important scholars, their works, methodologies, and findings over the course of the last forty years, and it also looks to the challenges currently facing this area of study and addresses the current state of the field and its future prospects. Although Chinese scholarship on medieval philosophy has already achieved great accomplishments, compared with the level of international research in the field abroad, there is still a huge gap to be remedied and therefore, we must recognize that there are great opportunities for Chinese scholars who will undertake the study of medieval philosophy with all due seriousness.     

邵雍先天易“天地自然之数”一解——对冯友兰先生《邵雍的“先天学”》的两点补充

作者通过对冯友兰先生《邵雍的“先天学”》的两点补充,认为．邵雍“先天易”图的六十四卦卦序按二进制六位数的大小依次排列而来．此即是宋代道学家所谓的“天地自然之数”。作者由此进一步揭示了先天卦序与阴阳生息的卦气思想之同．在一定程度上的某种暗合与实质上的相互矛盾。     

The spread and impact of Cartesian philosophy in China: historical and comparative perspectives

Cartesian philosophy has had a profound influence on modern Chinese intellectuals since the mid 19^th century. After the May Fourth Movement, there have been many Chinese scholars who worked immensely on Cartesian philosophy and conducted fruitful research including translations, biographies, monographs, and a large number of papers. The examination of mind/body has been one of the most important philosophic issues and also a fundamental truth-searching of the various great thinkers, from Confucius and Socrates to many later Eastern and Western philosophers. There are certain similarities and distinctions between Confucian ‘mind/body’ and Cartesian ‘mind/body’. As a super country with the highest population in the world, the studies of Cartesian philosophy in China have been very inadequate; it should be more prosperous and successful.     

Yin and Yang,and the Hot and the Cold

Yin and Yang are important concepts in ancient Chinese philosophy.Western scholars have become more familiar with these two concepts recently,but for a long time almost no one considered comparing them with their own tradition such as the ancient Greek philosophy,and especially with the ideas of the Hot and the Cold in Presocratic philosophy.In this paper,I make an attempt to do exactly that,and especially make a detailed comparison between the thoughts of two ancient thinkers:Laozi and Anaximander.I discuss the thought of Yin and Yang in Laozi-who was the earliest philosopher making use of the concepts Yin and Yang-to express his cosmological thought in ancient Chinese philosophy.Comparatively,I discuss the ideas of the Hot and the Cold in Anaximander,the earlier among Presocratic philosophers referring to the Hot and the Cold as fundamental concepts used to establish his cosmological system.Through this comparison,I indicate that the similarity between ancient Chinese and Western traditions is far more significant than what people are used to imagining.     

Traditional Chinese Thought: Philosophy or Religion?

Contemporary theoretical streams in sinology and modern Chinese philosophy have devoted increasing attention to investigating and comparing the substantial and methodological assumptions of the so-called ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ traditions. In spite of the complexity of these problems, the most important methodological condition for arriving at some reasonably valid conclusions will undoubtedly be satisfied if we consciously endeavor to preserve the characteristic structural blocks and observe the specific categorical laws of the cultural contexts being discussed. Whenever sinologists speak of Chinese philosophy, they must inevitably consider the appropriateness of this term. Due to the fact, that the general theory and genuine philosophical aspects of Chinese thought have only rarely been treated by Western scholars, they namely continue to remain quite obscure for the majority of them. Therefore, we must examine the fundamental question (or dilemma) of whether it is possible to speak of traditional Chinese thought as philosophy at all.     

张栻早期仁学思想考

张哲学的一个核心思想是仁学 ,以《仁说》为代表。从胡宏问学以来 ,他一直关注、探索仁的问题。张仁学的发展和演变可分为两个阶段 :其一是从裒集旧编《希颜录》、编纂《洙泗言仁录》到修订《希颜录》为一段 ;其二是从争论观过知仁、以觉训仁、朱熹《仁说》到自作《仁说》为另一段。从《希颜录》起开始 ,至撰写《仁说》为止长达十四年之久 ,张一直开拓这个儒学核心观念 ,终于形成其独特的仁学思想。而且这一段时间是在张哲学的形成和发展过程中非常重要的一段时期。前一时期 ,他广泛搜集儒家典籍当中有关仁的孔子言说和颜子言行 ,然后取舍选择 ,确定次第 ,加点北宋理学家和他自己的见解而成的。其主要目的是让学者先了解“求仁之方” ,然后“自进于圣人之门墙”。后一时期 ,以讨论与论辩形式来检讨湖湘诸儒和朱熹有关仁的言说与观点 ,然后提出自己的仁学观点 ,以树立自己的仁学思想。本文集中讨论前一时期 ,即张早期仁学思想的形成和发展之历史过程及其意义。     

Two different approaches to philosophy a critical reflection on contemporary Chinese philosophy

By means of critical reflection on the current situation of Chinese philosophy, this article aims to clarify two different approaches to philosophy. One is for scholars to focus on original texts and thought tradition, concerned with interpretation and inheritance; even in this way, scholars can achieve theoretical innovation through creative interpretation. The other is for researchers to face up questions from academics and from reality, and mainly to do theoretical creation in philosophy on a profound theoretical background, strictly following academic norms and standards. For contemporary Chinese philosophy, the two approaches are indispensable, but the serious problem is that the first approach absolutely is dominant, but the second is too weak. The correct choice of Chinese philosophy should be to let hundreds of flower bloom, to let different approaches compete with each other, and to cooperatively establish the prosperity of contemporary Chinese philosophy.     

The dissemination and research of Laszlo's systems philosophy in China

Since the 1980s, the so‐called “new six‐theory” (Dissipative structure theory, Synergetics theory, Catastrophe theory, Chaos theory, Fractal theory, and Hypercycle theory), different from the traditional “systems theory,” “information theory,” and “cybernetics theory” (the “old three theory") has been introduced into China. With it, Laszlo's systems philosophy has been given close attention by Chinese scholars. The main elements of this work are analyzed in terms of the publication and research of Laszlo's work on systems philosophy, and more specifically on systems philosophy and the theory of knowledge, systems philosophy and general evolution theory, systems philosophy and the theory of value, and systems philosophy and metaphysics.     

试论《管子》、《淮南子》等中国古代典籍中的朴素唯物主义哲学思想--兼与古希腊哲学的对话

在进行东西方哲学比较研究时,绝大多数学者都认为以古希腊哲学为代表的西方哲学关注本体论,而中国古代哲学更加注重实际.事实上,中国古代哲学与古希腊哲学一样,从一开始就存在着关注本体论的事实.我们的祖先不但在古希腊哲学家之前就提出了“五行”的哲学思想,而且更在“五行”思想产生前,他们就已经在思索、研究“土”、“水”、“气”等元素,并朦胧地提出了它们是物质世界的本原的观点.古代希腊哲学家们对于物质世界起源问题的探索是没有间断过的,有着清晰的发展脉络,中国古代探索世界本原的自然哲学则常常被以立身处世为目的的社会哲学所打断.