朝鲜朝《管子》言语“质正”——以《朝鲜王朝实录》为中心

从朝鲜朝汉语质正制度研究中新发掘的史料来看,朝鲜朝君臣对《管子》言语的应用十分重视.管仲号称“圣人之师”华夏第一相”等,他治国理政经典言语和思想被朝鲜朝君臣所推崇,如“教士三万,横行天下”“礼义生富足,盗贼起贫穷”“礼义廉耻,国之四维也,四维不张,何以为国”,等等.朝鲜朝在考证理解(质正)这些经典言语语义同时,积极在政论中应用并执行,对朝鲜朝国家政策制定与执行产生的了深远影响.     

从"死生有命"展开的思考

如果文化真有明确疆界的话,那么每一疆界似乎都应该有一些自己的“界标”。从某种意义上说,那些代表或表达着一个文化传统的最基本的观念的词汇和格言似乎就可以被用做这样的形式上的界标。我们试将“命”这一独特的观念视为中国文化的某种界标,因为从某种意义上说,文化边界意味着一文化之界限,而命恰恰是中国文化中的界限观念。说命可能首先让人想到中国传统的天命观念。但在日常生活中,中国人信的是那个不以“天”为定语的“命”,或者至少也是一个天已由之悄然隐去的命。古语有“安之若命”,今人则说“人不跟命争”或“认命”。这些说法均蕴涵着,命标志着人或人力的限度或边界。而这也就是说,这一意义上的命标志着人本身——人的可能性——的某种限度或边界。边界则意味着     

论《管子》的"以人为本"思想

在中国思想史上,《管子》一书最早明确地提出了“以人为本”的观念。《管子》中的“以人为本”包含着“人本”和“民本”两层含义,并且着重点在后一层意义上。在《管子》一书的作者看来,人民对于政权稳定、国家富强、战争胜利和称霸天下都是决定性的力量,因此统治者必须做到“顺民”、“富民”和“爱民”。《管子》中的“以人为本”思想尽管还不是近代意义上的人本主义思想,并且存在着一些局限性和落后的东西,但在许多内容上,都达到了同时代的著作所没有达到的高度。     

《管子》的民生思想及其对建设服务型政府的启示

《管子》是战国时期一本重要的治国理论著作,它包含着深刻的民生思想,告诫君主要坚持以民为本,才能国强民富,赢得民心,进而实现治理国家的目标。本文从利民、富民、顺民和爱民四个方面对《管子》的民生思想进行剖析,概括《管子》民生思想的精髓。这一研究可以为我国服务型政府建设提供启示和借鉴。     

来稿摘登

方铭邵来文在来稿《管子美学思想述评》中说:春秋战国之际,是政不自天子出,诸侯力政,“礼崩乐坏”的非常时期,管子受命于此危难之际,肩负辅佐齐桓公成就奉天子以令诸侯的霸业,故举措置政,每有兴废,必须有益于国家的繁荣昌盛,长治久安。正基于此。管子指出,“宫室足以避燥湿,食饮足以和血气,衣服足以适寒温,礼仪足以别贵贱,     

道教内丹性命双修与中国器乐形神俱妙

一 、道 教 内 丹 学 中 的 性 、命 身 、命 、气 、精 、形 等 物 质 性 范 畴 。 固 ,气 聚 则 神 灵 。 性 无 命 不 立 ,命 性 命 二 字 为 道 教 内 丹 学 之 纲 在 “性 命 关 系 ”方 面 则 代 表 了 “物 无 性 不 存 。 真 人 云 :“神 是 性 兮 气要 , 内 丹 学 文 献 中 对 性 命 问 题 的 质 与 精 神 ”、“身 与 心 ”、“形 与 神 ”、 …     

《管子》箴言选介

正管子有“法家先驱”“圣人之师”“华夏第一相”之称,《管子》一书中有许多能给人教益的箴言。“威不两措,政不二门,以法治国,则举措而已。”出自《管子·明法第四十六》。公元前6世纪左右管子最早提出“以法治国”的概念,比被马克思称为“古代最伟大的思想家”的亚里士多德提出法治观念还要早三百多年。此后,“法为治具”成为历代的一贯认识。“夫霸王之所始也,以人为本。本理则国固,本乱则国危。”出自《管子·霸言第二十三》。管仲作为历史上首个提出“以人     

伏羲"六峜"考

“六峜”在中国古籍中仅见于《管子》.对“六峜”一词的解释,近、现代研究《管子》的学者均释为“六法”或“八卦”.本文对“六峜”提出新的释义,指出“六峜”实际上是中国远古时代“天文始祖”伏羲在“立周天历度”中所创造的对八卦的一种运用方式.     

朝覲与聖地

朝覲天房是穆斯林的天命。对于一位身体好、有来往路費、旅途平安、家庭生活没有困难的伊斯蘭信徒,不論男女,一生里面应該朝覲一次天房。朝覲了天房的人,都得到真主赐予的平安。都如“剛从母亲生下的嬰兒一样”,純潔和幸福。每一位朝覲了天房的穆斯林,被尊称为“哈志”(朝覲的人),在穆斯林中享有光荣的尊敬。任何一位穆斯林都不能拒絕“哈志”到他們那兒去作客的。阿拉伯半島上有个沙特阿拉伯王国,天房就在这个国家的麦加城里。麦加城中央有座“禁寺”,寺中有一座立体四方形的石头房子。在石头房子的东南角,嵌镶着一塊从天上落下来的黑而發光的“玄石”。貼着石头房子的墙周圍,复盖着黑色的絲幔。这所石头房子就是“天房”——克尔白。因为这里是世界人类中,最早的敬拜唯一真主——安     

《管子》的辩证思想和方法

《管子》是管仲及其学派的作品。早在二千余年前,司马迁就根据《管子》之书指出过,管仲“为政也,善因祸而为福,转败而为功,贵轻重,慎权衡。”(《史记·管晏列传》)这段话含义有二,一是认为《管子》书中蕴藏了丰富的辩证法,二是这种辩证法与治政活动紧密相联。可以说,司马迁的以上评论较为准确地把握了《管子》辩证法的特征。本文试图对《管子》的辩证法(包括思想与方法二方面)作具体探讨,以求教于方家。     

Against Middle Knowledge

As a result of my teen–age conversion to the Catholic Church … I read a work called Natural Theology by a nineteenth–century Jesuit… and found it all convincing except for two things. One was the doctrine of scientia media , according to which God knew what anybody would have done if, e.g., he hadn't died when he did…. I found I could not believe this doctrine: it appeared to me that there was not, quite generally, any such thing as what would have happened if what did happen had not happened, and that in particular there was no such thing, generally speaking, as what someone would have done if… and certainly that there was no such thing as how someone would have spent his life if he had not died a child. I did not know at the time that the matter was one of dispute between the Jesuits and the Dominicans, who took rather my own line about it. So when I was being instructed a couple of years later by a Dominican at Oxford … and he asked me if I had any difficulties, I told him that I couldn't see how that stuff could be true. He was obviously amused and told me that I certainly didn't have to believe it, though I only learned the historical fact I have mentioned rather later.     

Was Wittgenstein an Anti-Realist?

William Child has said that Wittgenstein is an anti-realist with respect to a person's dreams, recent thoughts that he has consciously entertained and other things. I discuss Wittgenstein's comments about these matters in order to show that they do not commit him to an anti-realist view or a realist view. He wished to discredit the idea that when a person reports his dream or his thoughts, or past intentions, the person is reading off the contents of his mind or memory. Reporting what one dreamt or recently thought is not like reporting what one has just read. The language is different, and the criterion of truth is different.
The anti-realist is able to explain why the reports of thoughts, for instance, are "guaranteed" to be true (PI II, 222) by stipulating that the character and existence of the past thought is constituted by an inclination to assert that one had that past thought so the assertion could not be false. This could not be Wittgenstein's view. What does "guarantee" the truth of such an assertion is the fact that the person himself is the principle authority on what he dreamt, thought, and intended, something which "stands fast" for us.
I next consider Crispin Wright's account of Wittgenstein's ideas about intentions and point out that his assumption that person always makes a judgement as to whether his action conforms to his intention is clearly false. And he is wrong in attributing to Wittgenstein the idea that an intention does not have a determinate content prior to its author's judgement about whether the action conforms to the intention, an idea that is obscure. If this were accurate, it would be a mystery why we do anything, or, at least, why our actions ever conform to our intentions.     

MOTIVATING THE GLOBAL DEMOS

Abstract: Debates about the possibility of global democracy and justice are plagued by a fallacious assumption made by all parties. That assumption is that there is a "naturalness" to relations among fellow nationals to which a global demos could never aspire. In fact, nation builders employed a great many tools that mobilized the psychological and moral susceptibilities of individuals in order to create a sense of solidarity out of initially heterogeneous elements. Two such tools are described and then applied to the global sphere: first, appeals to prudence through the sometimes artificial engineering of Hobbesian situations, and second, uses of philosophically inferior but motivationally optimal moral argument. The applicability of these strategies to the global sphere suggests that cosmopolitans would be well advised to examine further the nation builder's toolbox for other devices through which a global demos might be motivated.     

Diary of a Telepathic Solipsist

A thorough telepath in an otherwise mindless world would have an observational basis for solipsism. He would perceive an absence of other minds. How would things appear to the lone telepath? Given sufficient scepticism about introspection, exactly as they now seem to you . This perceptual solipsist would exclude other minds on the basis of evidence rather than the absence of evidence. He would be open‐minded, ready to revise his opinion as rapidly as any perceiver. Any intransigence would be a side‐effect of his theory about the senses. Temperamentally, he need not be a loner. The solipsist's ethics could be altruistic, his politics democratic, and his social preferences gregarious. At the same time, his solipsism would inform his hopes for immortality, his career choice and his means of communication. 1 1 The author is not ready to come out as a solipsist. For the sake of plausible deniability, he asks that his diary be published under the name of someone willing to characterize him as a fiction.
     

The best interest standard: both guide and limit to medical decision making on behalf of incapacitated patients

In this issue of JCE, Douglas Diekema argues that the best interest standard (BIS) has been misemployed to serve two materially different functions. On the one hand, clinicians and parents use the BIS to recommend and to make treatment decisions on behalf of children. On the other hand, clinicians and state authorities use the BIS to determine when the government should interfere with parental decision-making authority. Diekema concedes that the BIS is appropriately used to "guide" parents in making medical treatment decisions for their children. But he argues that the BIS is inappropriately used as a "limiting" standard to determine when to override those decisions. Specifically, Diekema contends that the BIS "does not represent the best means for determining when one must turn to the state to limit parental action." He argues that this limiting function should be served by the harm principle instead of by the BIS. I contend that we should not reassign the BIS's limiting function to the harm principle. In this article I make two arguments to support my position. First, the BIS has effectively served, and can serve, both guiding and limiting functions. Second, the harm principle would be an inadequate substitute. It cannot serve the limiting function as well as the more robust BIS.     

From the Terrible Loneliness to the Wonderful Agreement of Human Beings

What would be the “terrible loneliness” and what would be the “wonderful agreement” in the present paper? The “terrible loneliness” is the only reality that a person perceives and/or thinks during the now going on. For the person, an enormous quantity of occurrences is in the present moment absent. A very small quantity of occurrences is present. The person is the only being in having this. And, this is only during a little moment. The person never thinks about his loneliness in this moment. On the contrary, he thinks he is plenty of people and full of occurrences. But, if he were thinking about reality, he would live in a terrible loneliness. How does he escape himself from this loneliness? He thinks that the probable occurrences are real occurrences. He may be right in a plenty of times. Going through what I call opening hypotheses—basic hypotheses and non-basic but important hypotheses—and going through what I call simply hypotheses he is able to sanction a wonderful agreement of human beings about the known parts of the Universe. However, they are hypotheses, not absolute realities.     

A teen court evaluation with a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective

Teen court defendants were assessed on several attitudinal measures when they entered and when they completed their teen court program. Teen court volunteers and high school civics students in a control group were assessed on the same measures at two points in time that approximated the length of teen court involvement for defendants. Re-offense rates for defendants were assessed. In addition, defendants and their parents completed satisfaction surveys. The teen court experience did not significantly impact the attitudes and beliefs of either the defendants or the volunteers. The re-offense rate for defendants was 13%, which is similar to other teen court programs and less than the re-offense rate for the general diversion program in the county that was the target of the study. Since this teen court selected youth with the least serious delinquency activity (primarily shoplifting), conclusions about the program's effectiveness in reducing further offending cannot be made. Defendants and their parents reported high levels of satisfaction with their teen court experience but defendants became more alienated from institutional authority. This study did not support the teen court experience as having a generally beneficial impact on defendants or volunteers that would be expected from a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective.     

The Controversial Discussions: Edward Glover and the Origins of "Double-Barrelled Training"

I attempt to rehabilitate Edward Glover's historical reputation, based on unpublished interviews as well as recently found documentary material. This should make one of the defining moments in the history of British psychoanalysis more plausible. Glover was an eloquent heresy-hunter - against Jung, Rank, Klein, Alexander, and others - yet the polemical side of him represents only one aspect of his career. During the Controversial Discussions Glover was taking some of the burden for the way his leader Jones had run the British Society. In moving against Klein, Glover felt he was fulfilling Freud's own wishes, and that he was allied with the recently arrived Viennese contingent. After Glover's resignation in 1944, Jones split the opposition by appointing Anna Freud as Glover's successor as IPA Secretary. Subsequently Adrian Stephen and Donald Winnicott opposed Glover's even being allowed to speak at a psychoanalytic conference in Amsterdam; Anna Freud defended Glover's presence then. Glover's long struggle to be accepted as a member of the Swiss Society only went through in 1949, when Jones ceased being President of the IPA. Glover and Anna Freud regularly corresponded about setting up of the distinction between the "B" and "A" groups within the British Society. Meanwhile Glover, who had since the early 1930s been the de facto founder of the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency, used his administrative talents there. He successfully founded The British Journal of Delinquency with Miller and Mannheim. Unlike what happened at the British Society, Glover cooperated without problem at the ISTD and the Portman Clinic. Glover was not only an important and successful clinical analyst but also a pioneer in forensic psychiatry. In 1947 he was unofficially approached and asked to take over the Directorship of the New York Psychoanalytic Training Institute. When the proceedings of the Controversial Discussions were published in 1991, various myths had been established about what had happened. That Glover found himself caught in the middle was not only a personal tragedy but also a part of a much larger story.     

Sellars and the "Myth of the Given"

Sellars is well known for his critique of the "myth of the given" in his "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind". That text does not make it unambiguous just how he understands the "myth". Here I take it that whatever else may be involved, his critique is incompatible with the view that there is a nonconceptual mode of "presentation" or "givenness" of particulars that is the heart of sense perception and what is most distinctive of perception as a type of cognition. A critical examination of Sellars' arguments, particularly those directed at the Theory of Appearing, results in the conclusion that he has failed to eliminate the above view of perception. Moreover, though Sellars is clearly opposed to the view that perceptual experience cannot provide justification for beliefs about perceived objects, I argue that Sellars has failed to shake the intuitive plausibility of that view.     

以忧患之心，思忧患之故——程氏易学的为政之道

作为北宋时代的洛党领袖,程颐倾其毕生心血所努力追求的就是一种含弘、宽容、合理的社会存在,企图依据易学原理,找到一条由内圣而开出外王的统一之道,达到内圣与外王的贯通,表现出作为儒者“以忧患之心,思忧患之故”的强烈的人文关怀和现实关怀。本文从三个方面一窥程颐丰富的政治思想和同时代的王安石一样,程颐主张改革北宋弊政,提出“革天下之弊,新天下之治”的主张。但在改革的指导思想上二人有很大分歧;在肯定集权君主的前提下,程颐主张对君权进行限制,君臣之间要推诚相待,任用“刚明之臣”格君心之非”;举贤、任贤的前提是养贤,刑罚和教化为养贤提供条件,刑罚齐其众,教化善其俗。程颐更重视教化的作用,因为通过教化可以达到他心目中的理想社会。