关于儒教的几个问题

儒教定义问题的争论实质上是围绕儒、儒家(儒生)、儒学、儒教以及国家(宗法)制度之间关系而展开的。儒教的主要特征表现为:神灵崇拜的多元化与一体化、有序化;宗教活动与政治活动的密切关联;独特的兼容性和适应性使得它在整个封建社会里处于国教的地位;出世与入世相统一,“内圣”与“外王”相表里。儒教历史作用和影响是一个动态的过程,它伴随着其国教地位的逐步巩固而渐渐体现出来。     

Measures of kearnels of reducibility axioms and singlets

The present paper is a generalization and further development of the theory of Kernel measures of reducibility axioms formulated in [1], [2], [3] in. the years 1969–1973. In this paper logical connections of Kernel measures with some set-theoretical notions are studied and some suggestions related to these connections are formulated.     

Supervenience,necessary coextension,and reducibility

Conclusion Supervenience in most of its guises entails necessary coextension. Thus theoretical supervenience entails nomically necessary coextension. Kim's result, thus strengthened, has yet to hit home. I suspect that many supervenience enthusiasts would cool at necessary coextension: they didn't mean to be saying anything quite so strong. Furthermore, nomically necessary coextension can be a good reason for property identification, leading to reducibility in principle. This again is more than many supervenience theorists bargained for. They wanted supervenience without reducibility. It is not always available for this mediating role.     

On the why-what phenomenon: A phenomenological explication of the art of asking questions

In the psychology of teaching, teaching of knowledge is one of the central themes. The psychology of teaching itself is also knowledge, so that the psychology of teaching and the teaching of psychology mutually include each other. Here, I would like to consider a phenomenon in the art of questioning in teaching a literary work of art and would like to show its relevance to the psychology of teaching in general.     

Explanation and the theory of questions

In The Scientific Image B. C. van Fraassen argues that a theory of explanation ought to take the form of a theory of why-questions, and a theory of this form is what he provides. Van Fraassen's account of explanation is good, as far as it goes. In particular, van Fraassen's theory of why-questions adds considerable illumination to the problem of alternative explanations in psychodynamics. But van Fraassen's theory is incomplete because it ignores those classes of explanations that are answers not to why-questions but to how-questions. In this article I provide a unified theory of explanatory questions that comprehends both how-questions and why-questions, and I show that a question-theoretic approach to explanation can be defended independently of van Fraassen's programme of Constructive Empiricism.     

Many questions Begs the Question (but questions do not Beg the Question)

The fallacy of many questions or the complex question, popularized by the sophism ‘Have you stopped beating your spouse?’ (when a yes-or-no answer is required), is similar to the fallacy of begging the question orpetitio principii. Douglas N. Walton inBegging the Question has recently argued that the two forms are alike in trying unfairly to elicit an admission from a dialectical opponent without meeting burden of proof, but distinct because of the circularity of question-begging argument and noncircularity of many questions. I offer a reconstruction of the many questions fallacy according to which it is just as circular as begging the question, concluding that many questions begs the question. The same analysis contradicts Walton's claim that questions can beg the question, drawing a distinction between questions as the instruments of question-begging, and as vehicles for categorical noninterrogative presuppositions that beg the question.     

Existence questions

I argue that thinking of existence questions as deep questions to be resolved by a distinctively philosophical discipline of ontology is misguided. I begin by examining how to understand the truth-conditions of existence claims, by way of understanding the rules of use for ‘exists’ and for general noun terms. This yields a straightforward method for resolving existence questions by a combination of conceptual analysis and empirical enquiry. It also provides a blueprint for arguing against most common proposals for uniform substantive ‘criteria of existence’, whether they involve mind-independence, possession of causal powers, observability, etc., and thus for showing that many arguments for denying entities (numbers, ordinary objects, fictional characters, propositions…) on grounds of their failure to meet one or more of these proposed existence criteria are mistaken.

On difficult questions and evident answers: dispositional inference from role-constrained behavior

The present research investigated the underlying processes of how perceivers draw correspondent dispositional inferences about two interacting targets in the presence of situationally induced role constraints. Specifically, it is argued that a sufficient under-standing of role-dependent attributional biases (e.g., the fundamental attribution error) requires a separate consideration of the respective dispositional inference processes about each of the tar-gets involved, particularly with respect to deliberate attributional inferences. Employing the quiz-role paradigm results from four experiments generally support this assumption. Moreover, the present findings suggest that perceivers are much more sensitive to situationally induced role constraints than previous results may suggest. Implications for the fundamental attribution error and theories of dispositional inference are discussed.     

The questions and curiosity of the psychoanalyst

Questions the analyst asks of the patient are a powerful but neglected aspect of the theory of psychoanalytic technique. Their importance resides in their dynamic impact on the psychic equilibrium of the patient because of their ability to destabilize existing compromise formations. A clinical vignette illustrates the view that the linguistic shift from other modes of discourse to the spoken question heralds a less visible parallel shift in the psychic equilibrium of either the psychoanalyst or patient. There is no more and no less complexity to questions than to any other communication by either analyst or patient. For that reason there can be no systematic classification of questions in the clinical psychoanalytic situation, just as there can be no definitive taxonomy of psychoanalytic discourse. It makes no sense to reduce the enormous diversity and range of all the questions the analyst asks to the simple dichotomy of good or bad for the analysis. Questions are the emblem of the analyst's mode of inquiry; they can further the development of self-observation, which is such an important concomitant, cause, and consequence of structural change.     

'Questions, questions, questions!' A comparison of therapist inferences and parental responses to systemic questions

Using a specially designed questionnaire, we examined the relationship between parental responses to systemic questions, therapists'views based upon these responses and parental reports of dysfunction in a member of the family. The questionnaire was completed by parents of a randomly selected population sample of adolescents and by experienced family therapists. Therapists made inferences that were predictable, coherent and reliable. They gave most salience to the concept of'enmeshment'and least to'hostile-discordant'functioning. Some enmeshed answers were favoured by substantial proportions of parents, suggesting that they may reflect normal variants of family functioning. However no associations between total enmeshment scores and reported mental health problems were found. Hostile-discordant functioning, as assessed in this study, was rare in the general population sample, but was associated with reported problems.     

Leading questions and the eyewitness report

A total of 490 subjects, in four experiments, saw films of complex, fast-moving events, such as automobile accidents or classroom disruptions. The purpose of these experiments was to investigate how the wording of questions asked immediately after an event may influence responses to questions asked considerably later. It is shown that when the initial question contains either true presuppositions (e.g., it postulates the existence of an object that did exist in the scene) or false presuppositions (e.g., postulates the existence of an object that did not exist), the likelihood is increased that subjects will later report having seen the presupposed object. The results suggest that questions asked immediately after an event can introduce new—not necessarily correct—information, which is then added to the memorial representation of the event, thereby causing its reconstruction or alteration.     

Asking the wrong questions about leadership

Comments on the article by R. J. Hackman and R. Wageman which presented some directions for leadership research. Hackman and Wageman organized their article around their five reject-accept questions suggesting new directions. The current author discusses how each of the questions appears far too timid for real progress in sorting out the chaff from the grain, but points out that the Hackman and Wageman article was a critique of five companion articles and made a substantial contribution to the literature.     

Ethical questions in the age of the new eugenics

As a result of the publicly funded Human Genome Project (HGP), and an increasing number of private enterprises, a new form of eugenic theory and practice has emerged, differing from previous manifestations. Genetic testing has become a consumer service that may now be purchased at greatly reduced cost. While the old eugenics was pseudoscientific, the new eugenics is firmly based on DNA research. While the old eugenics focused on societal measures against the individual, the new eugenics emphasizes the family as a control agent. Eugenics is now voluntary, with the promise of abortion for those afraid of producing genetically damaged children. The ethical concepts of beneficence, avoidance of maleficence, autonomy, and equity are discussed in terms of aspects of the HGP. One major issue is the need for an ethical system available to health consumers that will empower them and assist in their biogenic decisions. “The concentration on the genes implicated in cancer is only a special case of a general genomania (emphasis added) that surfaces in ... the weekly announcements in The New York Times of the location of yet another gene for another disease. The revealing rhetoric of this publicity is always the same; only the blanks need to be filled in: ‘It was announced today by scientists at [Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford] Medical School that a gene responsible for [some, many, a common form of] [schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, arteriosclerosis, prostate cancer] has been located and its DNA sequence determined. This exciting research, say scientists, is the first step in what may eventually turn out to be a possible cure for this disease.’” Lewontin ¹ Portions of this paper were presented at the Eighth National Conference on Applied Ethics, Long Beach, CA, February 27, 28 and March 1, 1997.