从佛教缘起的角度看"经济人"假说之不足

西方文明在"经济人"思想的引导下产生了工业革命,进而实现了现代化.但是,"经济人"思想的自利性,忽视了人与人、人与自然、人与社会的依存关系,使西方社会在实现物质文明的同时,产生了种种危机.而这些危机的解决有赖于一种新的伦理思想,以重新审视经济发展和人类存在的关系.佛教缘起观是一种从社会、个人和环境相互共生的视角,来看待社会发展的伦理思想,它对克服现代社会发展的各种片面性有积极的借鉴作用.     

《老子》"王亦大"考辨

<老子>第25章所云"王亦大"抑或"人亦大",历来争论甚大,本文从道家对理想世界的追求为出发点,通过考察<老子>及<庄子>对回归理想世界的不同途径选择,证明:<老子>希图借助"圣王"的力量促进这种回归,故<老子>十分重视"王"的作用,是为"王亦大";但<庄子>更重视"人"在回归理想世界的地位,是为后来改作"人已大"的思想资源.从"王亦大"到"人亦大",体现了道家思想的发展.     

中医:技术的"前厅"与人文的"后楼梯"

医学实在是一条"九尾狐",视角不同,姿态各异.道理其实很简单,人是自然界最复杂的"东西",就像相声中抖"包袱","人"是"东西"(物质性,由蛋白质、脂肪、水等物质构成),人又不是"东西"(超物质性,人是万物之灵,有思想,有情感),于是,研究人的医学就必然陷入"多元"的认知"徘徊"之中,不像其他的自然科学那样"纯粹",一条"栈道"往上爬,没有"岔道".学理谱系也很单纯,没有"旁枝".     

《道德经》第二十五章"王亦大"思想考

<道德经>第25章所云"王亦大"抑或"人亦大",历来争论甚大,本文从道家对理想世界的追求为出发点,通过考察<道德经>及<庄子>对回归理想世界的不同途径选择,证明:<道德经>希图借助"圣王"的力量促进这种回归,故<道德经>十分重视"王"的作用,是为"王亦大";但<庄子>更重视"人"在回归理想世界的地位,是为后来改作"人亦大"的思想资源.从"王亦大"到"人亦大",体现了道家思想的发展.     

论"以人为本"的思想渊源和科学内涵

"以人为本"思想的提出有其自身的理论根源."以人为本"不同于"以民为本",因为"民"是"人"的大多数,但"民"并不等同于"人",不能以以民为本代替以人为本,以人为本比以民为本更宽泛.与以人为本相反的原则是以物为本.以人为本最初本来是为了反对以物为本的管理原则提出来的.因此,以人为本的提法有其确切的含义,不能用别的提法笼统地加以取代.提出并肯定以人为本,同提出并肯定人道主义、人性、人权、人权的普遍性、人学等概念一样是理论上的重大突破.     

以唯物史观全面理解"以人为本"

人的问题是改革开放30年来马克思主义哲学研究中的重要问题.近年来,以人为本的科学发展观提出来之后,如何理解"以人为本"成为哲学界的一个热门话题,也出现了不少分歧和争论.有的学者与西方人本主义思想做比较,有的学者同中国古代的民本观做对照,有的学者结合现代管理学中的以人为本观念进行阐释,更多的人认为中国共产党人在当今条件下提出以人为本,尽管也是吸取以往的思想资源和合理因素的结果,但从根本上说,它是共产党为人民服务的宗旨在新形势下的发展和崭新表述,所以只能是以人民为本而不是以作为个体的人为本.也有学者提出,应该把作为"政治理论"的以人为本与作为"学术"的以人为本进行区分,前者就是以人民为本,后者则有着更丰富的内涵.     

《庄子》道德论是"以行为对象为中心"吗——与黄勇先生商榷

黄勇先生根据《庄子》提出的"差异伦理学"及"道德铜律"极具创造性,然与《庄子》思想有一定差异.《庄子》道德论不是以行为对象为中心的.《庄子》否定基于特定立场之行为的道德属性,反对"中心化"的行为.《庄子》并不提倡"站在他人立场"的做法,否定主客二分的行为之道德价值."道德铜律"的两个原则——"人所欲,施于人"与"人所不欲,勿施于人"——并不全然是《庄子》的主张.一种"站在他人立场上想问题"的做法,仍然解决不了《齐物论》所讨论的"评判者难题".尽管"道德铜律"或"差异伦理学"有异于《庄子》思想,但推进了《庄子》研究的方法论创新,能够反映出《庄子》道德论的超越性特点,有助于揭示《庄子》思想的价值.用这种极具创意的方法论分析《庄子》思想得到的基本结论仍然成立."差异伦理学"和"道德铜律"本身亦具有极高的理论价值,对解决人类面临的重大问题具有宝贵的实践意义.     

"大一统"视野下的历史人物观

"大一统"思想作为中华民族文化血脉中一个根深蒂固的成分,一向是中国人评价历史人物的重要尺度.无论在何种环境下,追求或顺应"一统"的人往往得到后世的好评,而企求"分裂"或满足于分裂状态的人则大多受贬斥.在通常情况下,"大一统"这一评价标准能超越人物的实际功绩、仁、和平、汉族主义和阶级意识等一系列其他的评价标准.     

超越"忠恕"之道——《中庸》"道不远人"章义疏

<中庸>一书引"子曰"处甚多,"道不远人"章[1]即其例.此章论君子之道,内及"忠恕",与<论语>颇可映证.然细加推绎,又可见其说己非"忠恕"所能范围.深入研究此章,既有利我们看清<中庸>作者对孔子"忠恕"思想之发展,同时,对我们认识<中庸>所引"子曰"之特点亦不无裨益.     

"弥罗斯对话"的正义难题

在西方政治思想史上,修昔底德<战争志>所记述的"弥罗斯对话"一直是个众说纷纭的政治议题.本文详细阐释这场"对话"所呈现的正义诉求与公平、安全、利益、希望和羞耻的多重纠葛;认为弥罗斯人所代表的斯巴达式"神圣"信仰与雅典式"人的自然"信念之间的对峙达至一个最高点,而雅典人在国际政治中始终是"自然之必然"的践履者.     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.