“鬼”事两则

《科学与无神论》编辑部:我第一次阅读贵刊之时,就想把我自己经历的两回"鬼事"告诉你们,但我是农民,文化低,缺知识,不知我的"鬼事"讲给人听,有无利益?想了好几年没有定论,我是体残、多病、年老、风烛残年的人,何时死去无法预料,我亲身经历的两回"鬼事"不说出来,总好像有件事没有做完似的,今天决定告诉你们,如果没有用就丢纸篓里,假如有些用,请整理发表,为了对事实的负责,若有必要可以写出讲述人我的姓名。     

"鬼"离我们有多远?--谈我心中的"鬼"影

一、懵懂中感觉“鬼”。 我出生在大别山下一个山村里。小时候,喜欢听大人讲故事,尤其在夏夜乘凉时,听故事是我的乐趣。记得六岁时,第一次听“鬼”的故事,是隔壁王大爷讲的,他说一次在夏夜他路过我们的村头时,听见村头的小河里有些东西在啪啪的击水声,他大声吆喝,那些东西“呼呼”地跑了,一会儿就消失了,那时我听罢觉得毛骨悚然;不久乘凉时,后院的宋老爹讲“鬼火”一事,说是人死后会变成“鬼魂”到处飘,并且当时他一边讲,一边手指着面前的大山上一闪一闪的光说,那就是的;随着听故事的内容增多。“鬼”在我心中扎下了根:有一次,我在村前的小河逮鱼,一不小心栽到河里去,     

悲与喜

得而复失,让人痛苦。如果从来就没有"得"过呢?没有得,就没有"失"?我的意思是说,"得"是"失"的根源,要免除"失"的痛苦,我们要从源头入手,要消灭"得",消灭那种容易复失的"得"。不要去争那种容易失去的"得",超出我们的必须的"得",是容易失去的;不符合我们本性的"得",也是容易失去的,这些     

遵主命有福

我们都有这样朴素的愿望,"成为一个有福之人",如何成为"有福之人"呢?今日的经文告诉了我们一个很好的方法,就是"遵行主命,就能成为有福之人",因此,借着神话语的亮光,我要与弟兄姊妹分享的信息是:"遵主命有福." 一、听主命令 1."以色列啊,你要听"(参申6:4) "听"的希伯来文是"Shema"(示玛),这段经文和《申命记》11章13节至21节以及《民数记》15章37节至41节一起被称为"示玛",也就是"恭听篇".犹太人对此非常熟悉,他们每天要背诵这段经文,并且定期在会谈敬拜中诵读.犹太人把示玛视为教义纲领,也是日常生活中重要的祷文.当时,以色列人并没有律法抄本,摩西教导百姓神的律法基本靠口述,特别重要的诫命需要反复提及,因此学会"听"是一门很重要的功课.     

请好好说话

正在朋友圈看到这样一条信息:如何让你的表达变得更温柔更尊重人?只要稍稍改变一下用词,比如把"谢谢"改成"谢谢你",把"随便"改成"听你的",把"我不会"改成"我可以学",把"听明白了吗"改成"我说明白了吗",把"关我屁事"变成"你开心就好",把"关你屁事"变成"你猜呢"。己所不欲勿施于人,那些你在聊天中最不喜欢听到的硬词,处处显得"我比你高明""我不在意你的感受"的句子,脱口而     

“车上太多人”不合语法——关于语感和语法的对话

客:前几天我跟一个朋友聊天儿的时候,说了句“车上太多人”。我朋友说,这句话不合语法,应该说成“车上人太多”。我说:“我讲的跟你讲的是一样的意思,你也听明白了。为什么你那句话合语法,我的就不合语法呢?再说,只要意思明白了,还用得着讲究什么语法呢?讲语法的目的也不过是为了把意思说明白嘛。”我朋友不同意我的说法。我们俩争了半天,谁也说服不了谁,你是搞这行的,请你评一评,“车上太多人”这句话究竟合不合语法? 主:恐怕你朋友是对的。客:为什么?!我有时候听别人也这么说。我自己这么说的时候,别人也能明白。我听说语法分析要以说话人的语感为基础。照这么说,我的感觉是     

“说书匠”陶勇祥

正他,网名"有声的紫襟",入驻喜马拉雅FM不到5年,就更新了64个有声读物专辑,累计播放量21亿、圈粉儿380万,月收入达到100万。这个江湖人称有声书领域"扛把子"的第一大V,就是90后"说书匠"陶勇祥。陶勇祥1991年生于江西省庐山市,读高中时,他无意间听到《张震讲鬼故事》的音频就被迷住了,听了一夜仍意犹未尽。从此,他听上了瘾,别人的MP3里是流行歌曲,而他的全是鬼故事。     

一样一句

正说话真有好听难听之别。最普通的例子是,英国人从来不说"你听不听得见",而讲"我语气是否清晰",客气与不客气差了十万八千里。一样一句话,负面说法是"他妒忌我",正面讲法是"我可能有叫他不顺眼之处"。"他取价那么贵,交的又是行货"不如改为"我们用不起他的稿子",反正不要,何苦再得     

美育何为

一、审美实践:实现自我价值 从古到今,我们有不少的美学家,也有不少的美育家,但对"美是什么"以及"美育何为"他们没能讲清楚,反而是越讲人们越糊涂了.为什么?这就在于他们总是离开人的本质以及人的"做人"谈论美,谈论美育,没有看到美乃至美育在根本上都以人的本质以及人的"做人"为前提,没有人的本质以及人的"做人",美乃至美育都不存在.美乃至美育问题,实际上都与人的本质以及人的"做人"密切相关!为改变此一局面,真正弄清"美是什么"以及"美育何为"问题,我们首先必须解决人的本质问题,从人的"做人"谈起.解决人的本质问题,弄清人生何为,无疑是揭示"美是什么"以及"美育何为"的唯一正确途径!     

学会放弃

一位从国外归来的朋友,让我回答一个问题:"皮球掉进洞,你该怎么办?"我不假思索地说:"这还不容易,往洞里灌水,皮球不就浮上来了吗?上小学的时候,老师就讲了。"朋友听了哈哈大笑:"单向思维!这是我们处理问题的一个误区。"接着,他开始复述国外一位教师的讲课——     

"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.