Assumption,Union and Sanctification: Some Clarifying Distinctions

In this article I engage with the notion that Christ ought to be understood to have a fallen human nature because Christ sanctifies human nature, and it is fallen humanity that needs sanctifying. In opposition to this line of thought, I argue that the Son of God assumed an unfallen nature, but with the powers of fallenness operative within it, and that this notion is consistent with a distinct account of sanctification. In support of these claims, I develop distinctions between a conjoining union and a transferring union, and between the Chalcedonian union at the incarnation and the extension of that union on the cross. At the assumption a conjoining union occurred, not a transferring union. Christ sanctified his own nature, prior to a transferring union.     

Physicalism, Teleology and the Miraculous Coincidence Problem

I focus on Fodor's model of the relationship between special sciences and basic physics, and on a criticism of this model, that it implies that the causal stability of, e.g., the mental in its production of behaviour is nothing short of a miraculous coincidence. David Papineau and Graham Macdonaldendorse this criticism. But it is far less clear than they assume that Fodor's picture indeed involves coincidences, which in any case their injection of a teleological supplement cannot explain. Papineau's and Macdonald's problem is subtly different from a similar one presented by Adrian Cussins. This is no more effective against Fodor's picture, but the kind of account of the relation between the physical and the psychological which could constitute a solution to Cussins' problem is one which, for independent reasons, a physicalist of Fodor's stripe ought to provide.     

亚里士多德的形而上学:本质主义、功能主义和自然目的论

亚里士多德的形而上学是一个长期引起人们争论和困惑的问题.本文从对<形而上学>T卷开始的一段话的分析入手,在澄清了人们的种种误解之后,表明了亚里士多德的形而上学的以一类特殊的实体亦即不动的动者为研究对象的根本特征.在此基础上,本文从亚里士多德的实体理论出发,通过分析这个理论的本质主义的、功能主义的、目的论的内涵,最终说明亚里士多德的形而上学体系是一个自然目的论的体系.     

权利优先、还是义务优先——对涉及人的生物医学研究中受试者权利与义务关系的理性思考

对“权利与义务”从“公正”方面进行了解读,论述了在涉及人的生物医学研究中,受试者权利与义务之间的复杂关系,提出“受试者权利优先”是平衡两者关系的基本原则;确立了“受试者权利优先”的具体策略：首先尊重受试者的权利（首要性）;当受试者的权利与受试者的义务出现一定矛盾时,应该把尊重受试者的权利放在首位（至上性）;在尊重受试者的权利中,化解两者矛盾。     

知情权 选择权 责任与义务

讨论患者的知情权、选择权与医生的责任义务很有现实意义。病人一旦就医,安全和早日康复是第一位的,当医生面对患者时,救死扶伤不惜一切地去挽救患者的生命是医生的天职,患者一旦推动生命,其他权力都是空话。     

Not All Partial Grounds Partly Ground: Some Useful Distinctions in the Theory of Grounding

The aim of this paper is to argue for some useful distinctions in the theory of grounding. I do so by first introducing the notion of grounding, discussing some of its features, and arguing that grounds must play some role in bringing about what they ground (sec.1). I then argue that there are various distinct roles a fact may play in bringing about another, and more particularly that we should distinguish between three such roles; enablers, partial grounds, and facts that partly ground (sec. 2). Finally, I present two theoretical advantages to incorporating these distinctions into our theory of grounding. Namely, that it reframes, and arguably dissolves, the contingentist-necessitarian debate (sec. 3), and that it helps to elegantly deal with the purported counterexamples to the transitivity of grounding and thus maintain the plausible elements of the assumption that grounding is a transitive relation (sec.4).     

论“逻辑在先”的哲学意义

黑格尔曾经指出要进入并研究哲学"需要一种特殊的能力和技巧"[1];柏格森更为明确地讲"研究哲学,就在于扭转思想活动的习惯方向."[2]进而言之,这一扭转乃是进人哲学研究的"门槛",只有跨越了这一门槛,才有可能登堂入室.这一门槛就是:从时间在先转向逻辑在先.     

On the Priority of Agent-Based Argumentative Norms

This paper argues against the priority of pure, virtue-based accounts of argumentative norms [VA]. Such accounts are agent-based and committed to the priority thesis: good arguments and arguing well are explained in terms of some prior notion of the virtuous arguer arguing virtuously. Two problems with the priority thesis are identified. First, the definitional problem: virtuous arguers arguing virtuously are neither sufficient nor necessary for good arguments. Second, the priority problem: the goodness of arguments is not explained virtuistically. Instead, being excellences, virtues are instrumental in relation to other, non-aretaic goods—in this case, reason and rationality. Virtues neither constitute reasons nor explain their goodness. Two options remain for VA: either provide some account of reason and rationality in virtuistic terms, or accept them as given but non-aretaic goods. The latter option, though more viable, demands the concession that VA cannot provide the core norms of argumentation theory.     

论公共决策的优先性价值

公共决策关涉价值,且负荷优先性价值。在思想史的维度上,众多学者认同公平是公共决策的优先性价值。在学理层面上,公共决策的公共性和政府的服务性决定公平是公共决策的优先性价值。处于市场经济条件下的政府必须以公共决策的优先性价值为基础正确把握公平与效率的辩证关系。     

The Paradox of Deontology and Agent-Centered Restrictions

Philosophia - The paradox of deontology, as the name suggests, is generally thought to pose a problem for deontological theory, particularly for agent-centered restrictions. I argue that it is...     

Consequentialist Teleology and the Valuation of States of Affairs

Elizabeth Anderson claims that states of affairs are merely extrinsically valuable, since we value them only in virtue of the intrinsically valuable (e.g.) persons in those states of affairs. Since it considers states of affairs to be the sole bearers of intrinsic value, Anderson argues that consequentialism is incoherent because it attempts to globally maximize extrinsic value. I respond to this objection by distinguishing between two forms of consequentialist teleology and arguing that Anderson's claim is either harmless or her argument for the claim is uncompelling. On the first conception of teleology, consequentialists need not hold that states of affairs are the sole bearers of intrinsic value, which allows them to deflect this criticism. On the second account of teleology, even assuming that states of affairs are the sole bearers of intrinsic value, Anderson's argument does not necessarily defeat such views.     

"生物学转向"与新目的论

在人类思想史上,恐怕没有哪一种理论或学说的命运像目的论那样富有戏剧性。在西方古代和中世纪,目的论在柏拉图、亚里士多德等人的呵护下,俨然成了权威的解释模式。到了近现代,随着自然科学和科学主义精神的发展,目的论又几乎成了所有理论中最“臭名昭著”的理论。然而,在当今心灵哲学、认识论和科学哲学等领域的自然化运动中,目的论不仅被“平反”了,而且成为人们谈论的主要话题,有关概念的使用频率趋高,其地位不断攀升,至少成了各种竞争理论中占据重要地位的一种理论。最低限度上,在相应的领域中,几乎再没有人把经过重新阐释的新目的论看…     

On the Role of Goal Orientation Traits and Self-Efficacy in the Goal-Setting Process: Distinctions That Make a Difference

We conducted a field study to investigate how goal orientation traits and two variants of self-efficacy affect the goal-setting process and, in turn, performance. Participants were 255 college students enrolled in psychology or biochemistry courses at a large east-coast university in the People's Republic of China. Structural equation modeling analyses largely supported the argument that self-efficacy defined as a trait interacts with goal orientation traits, whereas self-efficacy defined as a state mediates the trait effects in the goal-setting process. The specific Trait × Trait interaction form was consistent with Dweck's original goal orientation theory and Brockner's behavior plasticity theory.