憨山德清三教观的实相转化与方便随缘

正作为明末四大高僧之一,憨山德清注解并会通内教诸思想,更凭一己之力注解了许多儒道经典文本。学界多以三教一致、三教合一解读德清三教思想。但我们从德清所注解儒道佛经典文本,及其诸如教乘观、体用观、工夫论、圣人观等各方面三教思想对比中,可以发现德清会通儒道思想中有一些辩证之处,其既承认三教一致,又反对三教合一。这是     

试析北宋《老子》注家的孔老异同论

北宋儒学者在注释《老子》时,既肯定了孔、老之言论存在相异之处,同时又分析了产生这种差异的原因,并进而在此基础上致力于儒道思想之会通。其中最有代表性的观点是王雱的孔老循环说和苏辙的孔老互补说。     

方东美论儒道墨“三位一体”的道德精神

中国古代思想的最高成就,在方东美看来是“儒道墨三家会通处”(蒋国保、周亚洲编《生命理想与文化类型——方东美新儒学论著辑要》第344页,以下凡引本书只注页码),他认为“纯正的中国     

诠释学视域中的郭象圣人人格论

郭象立足于传统的内圣外王之道,在玄学会通儒道的时代背景下,对圣人人格问题进行了创造性的诠释,认为圣人具有无心顺物、游外冥内之德。一方面,传统的儒家圣人被赋予道家的自然性情,成为被老庄化了的圣人;另一方面,又为传统的道家圣人赋予了积极有为的品格,消解了其超越避世的特征,从而在理论上将内圣与外王合而为一,解决了魏晋玄学中超世与入世、方外与方内、有为与无为、名教与自然等重要理论的内在统一问题,为儒道会通提供了多重视角。虽然郭象的圣人人格论有违庄子的原意,但在诠释学的视域中则有其正当性与合理性。     

梁武帝《会三教诗》浅析

南朝梁武帝在儒道佛三教关系上主张三教同源论和三教会通论,这一点充分体现在他的《会三教诗》中。《会三教诗》首段自述少时学习周孔,第二段谓中年之后开始观看道家典籍,第三段说后来研究佛教,第四段说由于众生充满分别之念而形成儒道佛三教的浅深不同。《会三教诗》篇幅虽然短小,但却是梁武帝对宗教有关儒道佛三教关系的高度概括和总结,深入解读这首短诗可以成为了解梁武帝三教会通思想和他在位时期宗教文化政策的终南捷径。     

宋元明清儒家学派的类型

就宋元明清四朝而言,儒家思想仍然是封建社会的主导思想,但儒家内部的分野是相当明显的。从学术流派的归属上看,四朝的儒家学派大致可分为：独尊儒术型、儒道互补型、三教合一型、四教会通型。这是作为中国传统文化主流的儒家学派不断吸收外来文化以丰富自己的体现。     

由道德视阈出发:王弼康德思想比较

在魏晋玄学中,王溺的哲学思想起了奠基者的意义,他的哲学比较好地表达了魏晋玄学的主题,也比较好地实现了儒道思想的会通;既建立了自己本体论哲学,也很好地表达了自己的现实关怀以及价值主张。与19世纪德国古典哲学中的康德思想比较,存有许多相通之处。康德是德国古典哲学的奠基人,他的自由境界、道德追求以及价值取向和魏晋玄学有许多可比性,因此在一定意义上就构成了两者超越时空的对话。     

“儒道互补”美学史观内涵解析

"儒道互补"最早是李泽厚在《美的历程》中提出,后来在《华夏美学》中被确立为中国美学史观。"儒道互补"命题被广泛接受,但在接受中存在着误读。经过进一步梳理可以发现,"儒道互补"美学史观具有独特而丰富的内涵:其前提是儒道思想的同一性,实质是儒家主干,以道补儒;动力是儒道思想对屈骚传统、禅宗美学和近现代各种美学思想的兼收并蓄,"自然的人化"观是其现代转化形态。"儒道互补"美学史观的这些内涵与诸多学者所谈及的强调儒道之间差异、儒道之间平等、与屈、禅思想无关,只局限于中国古代美学思想而与近代人性解放和西方美学几乎无关的"儒道互补"思想完全不同。正本清源有助于深化对"儒道互补"这一重要且复杂问题的认识。     

从儒学到玄学——以王弼玄学的生态智慧为例

魏晋玄学是对汉代儒学的正本清源,而并非是对儒学的简单否定。通过会通儒道的方式,玄学完成了对儒学的继承与革新。作为魏晋玄学最重要的开创性人物,王弼在对生态智慧的阐释中,一方面吸收了儒家思想,强调发挥人的主观能动性,认为人在整个生态系统中处于主导地位;另一方面,又从道家思想中汲取营养,强调人类应该因顺自然,充分地体现了儒学对玄学的继承与革新。     

从汤用彤论玄学“反本”问题看三教会通——以理学发生史为中心

由末达本的"反本"问题是三教会通的生长点,在魏晋南北朝成为时代思潮的中心问题,也是复性论兴起的前奏。以此为纲便可一以贯之地把魏晋南北朝玄学史乃至中国思想史上许多表面互不关联的现象贯穿起来。汤用彤首创从本末之辨的角度来解释三教之争,总结出玄学是以"由末返本"的方式融合儒道释,从而开创了现代意义上玄学与三教关系的研究。汤用彤是对儒道释三教发展史有着通盘把握的前辈大师,系统总结他在这方面的贡献,是推进当前三教关系研究的一条捷径。本文以魏晋南北朝本末之辨到理学缘起为中心,对汤用彤关于"反本"观念源流的考辨进行梳理,进而揭示其汉魏两晋南北朝研究的治学思路和独具慧眼的问题意识,希望有助于理清魏晋南北朝时期复杂的三教关系及理学缘起的脉络。     

"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.