老庄、黄老、仙道——《抱朴子》思想的再认识

老庄道家是道教的理论来源之一,道教学者葛洪总体上对老庄持维护态度,但也在生命观和政治观上对老庄提出了批评。通过认真辨析《抱朴子》中"道家"和"黄老"的内涵,以及葛洪对老庄道家的态度,可以看到葛洪的道教仙学既批判地继承了黄老之学,同时也在一定程度上偏离了黄老之学,这是葛洪道教仙学的独特性所在。     

葛洪的汉学倾向——兼论葛洪与魏晋玄学的关系

葛洪虽然生活在玄学盛行的两晋之交,但他所处的地域及家学、师承都倾向于汉代儒学.受此影响,葛洪的学问也具有明显的汉学倾向.正因为这样,葛洪与玄学的关系显得比较复杂.一方面,他对玄谈所引起的任诞世风提出严厉的批判,对老庄之学的不合世务屡有非议.但与此同时,他也崇尚以人物品评为主的汉末清议;在构建神仙道教理论的过程中,也吸收借鉴了玄学关于本末、有无、养生等问题的理论精华.弄清这些问题,对于了解以葛洪为代表的魏晋神仙道教思想与汉末儒学、魏晋玄学的关系,有十分重要的意义.     

试论葛洪的经济思想

葛洪(283—363),字稚川,自号抱朴于,东晋时期著名道教学者和思想家,在道教史和道教思想史上都占有极其重要的地位,特别是他创立的神仙道教理论,对以后道教的发展有着深远的影响。     

葛洪的哲学思想概说——《抱朴子内篇》中的道教哲学研究之一

<正> 葛洪是魏晋时期著名的道教学者,他的代表作《抱朴子内篇》(亦简称《内篇》)为当时的神仙道教奠定了理论基础。葛洪集宗教家和古代科学家于一身,是一个理性主义的有神论者,在《内篇》中形成了自己的道教哲学体系。下面,我们对葛洪的哲学思想,略作概括分析。     

徜徉在入世与出世之间--葛洪儒道兼综思想剖析

葛洪是中国道教金丹道派的奠基人."夫道者,内以治身,外以为国",这是他儒道兼综思想的自我定位.葛洪出身于士族世家,早岁熟读儒书,中年立业封侯,因受叔祖葛玄的影响,中年一度及晚岁驻足罗浮山修仙入道,这就徜徉于入世与出世之间.而道术儒修无二致,神仙忠孝有完人,自是其毕生思想及为人的写照.葛洪视民间"俗所谓道率皆妖伪",而斥"淫祀奸邪,礼律所禁".修道不忘儒教,为金丹道派的官方正统地位提供保证,同时对后来道教发展带来影响.     

道教心学的精神气质——以《内观经》为核心的考察

六朝以来道教思想的蓬勃发展,直接催生了重玄学的形上学理论。同时还有一股与即将兴起的佛教禅学相媲美的道教心学思潮,正处于萌芽与成长的过程中。虽然在当时的历史地位与所取得的成就,没有达到重玄学那样的高度,但对未来道教认识的发展所产生的重大影响,甚至超过了重玄学曾经享有的荣誉。成为与佛教禅学既存在着相当共性又具有自身独特价值的思想学说。     

葛洪“气禁”理论探源

禁咒术是道教中最具特色的道术之一。禁咒术本是秦汉方术的一种,经过葛洪在《抱朴子内篇》中的理论化,提出了"气禁"理论。这一理论提出之后影响非常深远,是后世认识和看待禁咒术的主流思想,使禁咒术具有了合理性。本文讨论的核心就是葛洪"气禁"理论提出的背景以及他如何将禁咒术置于道教的知识体系中,即如何在成仙的目标下使禁咒术成为道教理论的一部分。郭鸿玲,四川大学道教与宗教文化研究所2015级博士研究生。     

《魏晋神仙道教——抱朴子内篇研究》序

道教是中国本土产生的宗教,在中国传统文化中居于重要地位,研究中国道教的形成、发展和影响具有重要的意义。葛洪是两晋南北朝道教创建革新时期的巨子。正如本书所指出的,他上继了秦汉方士神仙的传统,下开上清、灵宝两大教派,对上层神仙道教的创建和与之相关联的科学技术的发展作出了特殊的贡献。研究葛洪是研究道教发展的重     

试论支遁、僧肇与道家(道教)重玄思想的关系

本文系作者探讨佛道关系的系列论文之一，阐述了东晋高僧支遁、僧肇对道家（道教）重玄思想的融摄和阅发于前，道教重玄学者融摄支遁、僧肇佛学思想于后，二者互相融摄、相得益彰的关系。文章指出，支遁、僧肇的佛学思想不是道教重玄学的理论根基，只是在重玄学的形成过程中给予了较显著的思想影响和一定的思想资料方面的滋养     

南北朝道教重玄学初探

一、重玄学思想之渊源南北朝时期重玄学的快速发展,一方面是由于大量士族文人加盟道坛,并运用重玄的思维方式注疏老庄,希望在提升道教理论品位的同时,建构道教圆融的经教体系;另一方面是由于佛道之争的需要,使得道教不得不自觉地加强自身教义理论建设,以期与善于精思析理的佛教     

魏晋玄学关于宇宙本体思想的逻辑演进

魏晋玄学究竟是一种什么样的思想文化?它出现在魏晋时代到底有何思想价值?也就是说,中国传统的思想文化为什么在继先秦诸子、两汉经学之后要出现和能出现这样一种以究玄为主要方式的思想文化?对这一问题的解读,尽管离不开对魏晋时期社会经济、政治、思想文化状况的分析研究,以及在此基础上对魏晋玄学之历史发展的分梳、阐述,但主要的方面不应是对魏晋玄学作史的考察,而应是对其作哲学的考察,即首先要确定玄学思想的哲学主题。     

Indeterminate Interests: Comments on Justin Remhof’s Nietzsche’s Constructivism

Philosophia - In his book Nietzsche’s Constructivism: A Metaphysics of Material Objects Justin Remhof defends, using resources from Nietzsche’s thought, the constructivist view that all...     

The Virtues of Metaphysics: A Review of Iris Murdoch's Philosophical Writings

Iris Murdoch's moral philosophy has long influenced contemporary ethics, yet it has not, in general, received the kind of sustained critical attention that it deserves. Existentialists and Mystics and Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals provide new access to most of Murdoch's philosophical writings and make possible a deeper appreciation of her contribution to current thought. After assessing the recent critical reception of Murdoch's thought, this review places her moral philosophy in the context of contemporary trends in ethics by tracing her influence on the work of Charles Taylor, highlights the distinctive features of her moral philosophy (especially her analysis of consciousness), and suggests future directions for Murdochian ethics.     

The Virtues of Metaphysics: A Review of Iris Murdoch's Philosophical Writings

Iris Murdoch's moral philosophy has long influenced contemporary ethics, yet it has not, in general, received the kind of sustained critical attention that it deserves. Existentialists and Mystics and Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals provide new access to most of Murdoch's philosophical writings and make possible a deeper appreciation of her contribution to current thought. After assessing the recent critical reception of Murdoch's thought, this review places her moral philosophy in the context of contemporary trends in ethics by tracing her influence on the work of Charles Taylor, highlights the distinctive features of her moral philosophy (especially her analysis of consciousness), and suggests future directions for Murdochian ethics.     

Book Reviews

Books reviewed:
Michael V. Wedin, Aristotle's Theory of Substance: the Categories and Metaphysics Zeta
Steven Nadler, The Cambridge Companion to Malebranche
Kathleen Marie Higgins, Comic Relief: Nietzsche's Gay Science
Terence Parsons, Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics
Peter Carruthers, Phenomenal Consciousness: a Naturalistic Theory
Jeremy Butterfield and Constantine Pagonis, From Physics to Philosophy
Stewart Shapiro, Thinking about Mathematics: the Philosophy of Mathematics
David Miller, Principles of Social Justice
John Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations
B. Gaut and D. McI. Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics
Amie L. Thomasson, Fiction and Metaphysics     

Adorno's Aristotle Critique and Ethical Naturalism

In this paper, I do three things. First, I unpack and outline an intriguing but neglected aspect of the thought of the Frankfurt School critical theorist Theodor W. Adorno—namely, his critique of Aristotle, which can be found in two of his lecture series: the unpublished 1956 lectures on moral philosophy and the 1965 lectures published as Metaphysics: Concept and Problems. Second, I demonstrate how Adorno's Aristotle critique constitutes a powerful critique of contemporary neo‐Aristotelian ethical naturalism, of the sort advocated by thinkers such as Philippa Foot, Michael Thompson and John McDowell. Third, I expound upon where this critique leaves the prospect of formulating a robust ethical naturalism more generally.     

Real Metaphysics

Book Information Real Metaphysics. Real Metaphysics Hallvard Lillehammer and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra, eds., London : Routledge, 2003, VIII + 248, £65 (cloth), £19.99 (paper) Edited by Hallvard Lillehammer; and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra. Routledge. London. Pp. VIII + 248. £65 (cloth:), £19.99 (paper:),     

The Nothing and the Ontological Difference in Heidegger's What is Metaphysics?

This essay gives an interpretation of Heidegger's “What is Metaphysics?” lecture in light of passages from his other writings and lecture courses of the period. This exegetical task is important, for interpreters of “What is Metaphysics?” have been confused by puzzling phrases in the lecture without noticing that Heidegger makes the same points in clearer terms elsewhere. In particular, these interpreters ignore Heidegger's crucial distinction between entities and the being of entities. Since Heidegger's “nothing” is an aspect of being, this difference is at the core of Heidegger's lecture. The present interpretation establishes a conditional conclusion: If the ontological difference makes sense, then we have a sound basis for understanding “What is Metaphysics?” and do not need to read Heidegger as an irrationalist who debunks science or rejects the principle of contradiction. This paper does not give independent justification for the ontological difference.     

Husserl's debate with Heidegger in the margins of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics

Husserl received from Martin Heidegger a copy of his Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics in the summer of 1929 not long before Husserl had determined to reread Heidegger's writings in order to arrive at a definitive position on Heidegger's philosophy. With this in view, Husserl reread and made extensive marginal comments in Being and Time and Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. This essay by the translator of the remarks in KPM offers some historical background and comment on the importance of the remarks in KPM and attempts to describe Husserl's counterposition to Heidegger on six issues that divided the two major twentieth century philosophers.     

On a Supposed Solution to the Reinhold/Sidgwick Problem in Kant's Metaphysics of Morals

The purpose of this paper is to challenge the suggestion that Kant offers a solution to the Reinhold/Sidgwick Problem in his Metaphysics of Morals. The problem, briefly, is about how Kant can hold moral evil to be imputable when he also seems to hold that freedom is found only in moral actions. After providing a new formulation of this problem under the title ‘Objection R/S’ and describing the popular strategy for addressing it through reference to this text, the paper recounts some of the history relevant to interpreting the passage in question. The paper then argues that this strategy is not supported by the text and indeed proves to be contrary to other arguments that are central to Kant's moral thought. The closing section briefly considers other possible ways of addressing the Objection R/S.