"鬼月"话"鬼"

每年阴历的七月,人们俗称“鬼月”,民间至今还流传“七月半,鬼乱窜”的迷信谚语。而七月十五的“中元节”,传言更为离奇,据说这天鬼魂全出,人们不可乱走,更忌出远门。倘若碰到鬼魂一年都将不吉利。鬼从何来?其实心理学家早就指出:一般来源于客观事物的突然出现,但却没有直接作用于人的感觉器官,而是头脑中所     

唯有尊严不可踩在脚下（外一则）

有一个小男孩，一次从同学家回来，伤心地哭了。他想，怎么别人家脚踩的地方都远远胜过自己睡觉的地方?回到家里，他向母亲哭诉了自己的感想。母亲听完孩子的哭诉后，平静地说：“孩子，我们不必羡慕别人家漂亮的地板，再漂亮的地板也是被人踩的，只要我们活着，不自卑地活着，有尊严地活着，任何漂亮的地板我们都可以把它踩在脚下。孩子记住，这世上只有一样东西叫人无法踩在脚下，那就是尊严。”     

“灵魂不灭”:灵学的永恒主题

从古代到现代,纵观一切迷信活动,很多都与“灵魂不灭“这个漫长的与人类认识史相伴的题目有关。到了今天,尽管科学已发展到上天入地的幻想已变成现实的时代,这个主题仍然被它的信仰者奉为神明,高高悬挂在神龛之巅。追溯到古代,人们对灵魂的概念,是起源于对死去亲人的乞灵,他们在梦中见到已死的亲人,会认为死者仍然还以某种形式活着,并且把这种关于“不死“的实体或“灵魂“的观念渐渐地扩散到其它生命、甚至无生命的物体之上。后来人类学家把这种现     

试填浪淘沙 送别——为全国修院九七届毕业修生而作

今年初始,似乎只在区区瞬间,SARS病毒便突如其来地侵入了人类的生命。现代汉语就诞生了一个使用率极高的新词——非典型肺炎。悄然无声的疫情蔓延开来,将死亡的病毒逼近人们的身体,把生命推到死亡的边沿来重新思考自己。 人活着好好的为什么要生病?本来,生老病死是一个人的人生过程,但如何对待活着或死去的问题,恐怕是每个人都最关心的。因此,当病毒     

活着的意义

曾经有一个对生活失去信心的人找到古希腊哲学家安提丰．愁眉苦脸地向他求教：“大师，请问人活着到底有什么意叉呢？”安提丰说：“我至今也没有想清楚这个问题，所以我要活下去!”     

不叹流年

正每至年末,我们免不了要感慨光阴如流水。其实握在手心里的平淡日子一样滋味长,只是人本多情,重节日如权益,瞻前顾后,年年叹息。我想,人其实有两种意义上的活着,一是此刻,一是回忆。过去的时光是如何回到我们的生活,当然是经由回忆。只是年轻时把生命当做纸,心如椽笔,恨不得一下子把所有的纸写完,写出不朽之作。渐渐才明白,光阴才是笔,不急不躁,把我们一笔     

教内"阴盛阳衰"现象刍议

我们要引导主内同道注意福音对象的多向性,不单是老年人,不单是有病的人,也不单是女性(尽管对病人、老人、女性传福音相对比较容易)。保罗说:无论什么人,我都欠他们的债。福音对“无论什么人”都是需要的。为了构建“两性共荣”的教会,我们需要有意识地关心牧养我们的弟兄,并向我们身边的男士传福音!     

人生与机遇

人生道路并不平坦,而往往是坎坷和崎岖的。在这坎坷崎岖的道路上,怎样才能步履矫健,高歌猛进呢?因素虽多,对人生抱什么态度就是一种因素。应当看到,各个时代,各个阶级,甚至各个人所抱的态度是不同的。因而,他们的人生价值也会有差别。正象臧克家同志在一首诗中所说的那样:有的人死了,他还活着;有的人活着,他已经死了。原因是前一种人活着总是为别人活得更美好;后一种人活着却是使别人遭受灾难和耻辱。然而,这一人生哲理并没有被人们普遍重视。如今,被重视的倒是机遇问题。有些人认为,人的幸福、成才与否全靠机遇。他们把“关系户”、“关系网”看作是“黄金屋”,寻找机遇的捷径。这种蜘蛛网式的“关系户”,对社会风气、党风、人的成才都带来不良影响。这种情况,向我们提示了这样的问题:人生与机遇的关系如何,怎样对待机遇?     

让心灵的悲哀远去

一场意外的事故,使亲人离我们而去,这残酷的现实足以让我们捶胸顿足、痛不欲生。然而逝者已长眠,活着的人应该抖擞精神,带着逝者的期望和嘱托更好地活着…… 朋友,如果您不幸遭遇到相似的打击,是否可以告诉我们您是怎样让心灵的悲哀远去,重新面对生活的?您成功的做法,将会帮助那些还沉湎于极大痛苦之中的人们脱离苦海。谢谢您的大力支持。期待您赐稿。     

不要论断人

<正>“你们不要论断人,免得你们被论断。因为你们怎样论断人,也必怎样被论断;你们用什么量器量给人,也必用什么量器量给你们。”（太7∶1-2）人生在世,有两样很重要,一是做人,二是做事。做事干净,做人清白。活着要做事,做对的事、做善的事;同样地,活着要做人,做对的人、做善良的人。学会做人,就要明白待人之道。圣经教导我们如何待人,有个底线就是不要论断人。什么是“论断人”     

"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.