解码"慈孝文化"

"文化密码"是一个民族的文化得以代代相传而成为"传统"的内在奥秘.解开"密码"才能把握和自觉地弘扬"传统".中华民族传统"慈孝文化"的文化密码,就是血缘亲情、"亲子之爱"以及内在于其中的亲情"双向交往"伦理关系的心理机制."慈孝文化"是父母与子女血缘真情("本")与道德规范("末")的统一;不要"弃其本而适其末",而应"崇本以举其末".要建设"和谐家庭",生活在现代社会的为人父母和为人子女都应该自觉这种基于血缘关系的人类"亲情"之爱,和基于父母与子女之间真情的"双向交往"机制的亲情关系.     

"文化理解"与价值冲突

本文以现代西方解释学为基本理论资源,指出古一今、中一外文化冲突的过程就是文化主体进行"意义"理解"的过程."理解"的对象,不是一般的"作品文本",而是"文化文本".文化冲突中价值建构的关键是确立"文化理解"的理念,进行"文化理解力"批判.文化目的性的合理性、"先见"的反思、创造力的培育,是"文化理解"的基本内涵;"忠实的理解"、"创造性的转化",是"文化理解力"的基本品质.     

江苏文化发展战略的"文化作用强"

江苏目前已经进入由"投资驱动向创新驱动"转型的发展阶段,这个阶段,迫切需要江苏文化有更大的作为.江苏目前推进的"文化强省"建设,在文化领域取得了许多成就,但推进文化建设战略思路更多还局限在"文化自身强"这个领域中,公共管理中的以文化推进经济社会发展的路径还没有建立起来.因此,在江苏文化强省新一轮建设中,应该学习世界各国推进经济文化一体化发展的先进经验,通过推进精益化行动、工艺创新和大力发展创意产业,来实现江苏的"文化作用强",使江苏的"文化强省"成为名副其实的"文化强省".     

"伦理"话语体系及其中国密码

"伦理"是中国文化最具标识性的基本话语之一,既不能与"道德"循环互释,也不能与"ethic"直接对话,否则将导致意义肢解甚至文化殖民,必须在话语体系及其辩证运动中才能倾听到其文化脉动."伦理"话语是由"伦"—"理"—居"伦"由"理"—伦理世界四要素构成的话语体系."伦"是"国—家"文明的特殊话语,是具有终极关怀意义、世俗而超越的伦理实体."理"是"伦"之"理",它不是西方式的认知理性,而是中国式的良知理性;在文化形态上,它不是理性主义,也不是情感主义,而是中国式的情理主义."居'伦'由'理'"是"伦"—"理"关系的文化原理和文化规律,其要义是从"伦"的家园出发,行"理"之达道."伦理世界"既是由"伦理"话语及其传统所创造的一种特殊世界观即"伦理世界观",也是其追求的终极理想."伦理"话语及其体系,携带特殊的中国文化密码,体现中国文化的特殊精神气质,也具有特殊的文明史地位.     

中国艺术史中"工匠文化"的伦理价值

"工匠文化"在构筑和演绎艺术史中扮演着极其重要的角色。艺术史的广度与高度、深度与精度都离不开"工匠文化"。"工匠文化"在艺术史中不仅具有本体价值,还具有极其重要的社会伦理价值。"工匠文化"所蕴含的伦理价值主要表现在社会关系、"义""利"关系等两个基本方面。本文将从内在的价值理想和外在的行为规范两个层面对艺术史中"工匠文化"的伦理价值进行剖析与阐释。     

论中国的"隐"文化

中国古代的隐士创造了中国历史上独特的"隐"文化,它讲究亲近自然,清心寡欲,修身养性,澹然超脱.这种"隐"文化虽不是中国文化的主流却源远流长,并对中国传统文化产生了深远影响.     

"原罪"释疑

在基督教教义中,"罪"和"原罪"的思想在中国历来是被误解较多的两个概念.中国文化的语境下,"罪"是与对法律的违反和道德上的"恶"紧密关联在一起的,这样的理解与基督教对"罪"的理解有很大的距离.也正因如此,中国人对"原罪"的理解则更为困难.本文试图借助基督教思想史上对"罪"和"原罪"问题的一些很有价值的论述,对基督教语境下"罪"和"原罪"的含义进行辨析,以区分它们与中国社会和文化对"罪"的理解之不同,从而尽可能地消除国人对基督教所讲的"罪",特别是"原罪"的普遍曲解.     

"行己有耻"

被看作是文化人类学中文化模式论学派的创始人本尼迪克特(Ruth Benedict 1887-1978),在她对日本文化研究的名作《菊与刀》中,以她对文化研究中人格与心理的独特视角,提出了西方罪感文化以及与之对应的东方耻感文化的概念.在她看来,所谓"罪感文化",就是"提倡建立道德的绝对标准,并且依靠其发展人的良心的社会可以定义为'罪感文化'."     

简论中国"礼"文化中的生态伦理观

中国是"礼仪之邦",中华民族文化的基础是"礼".中华民族文化的"礼"源于自然,体现了中华文明"天人合一"、"天人合德"的核心思想."礼"文化中所蕴涵的生态伦理观是现代社会可持续发展战略追寻,探索的目标之一,是建构现代和谐社会的文化精髓.中华民族文化中的生态伦理观,对建构现代和谐社会的生态关系及生态伦理学具有重大意义.     

"人本"与"民本"

"人本"与"民本"是两个既有联系又有区别的概念.这两个概念可以说都是中国传统的思想,而又是近现代的表述[1].简言之,"人"相对于神和物而言,"人本"是普遍的哲学或文化的概念;"民"相对于国家和执政者而言,"民本"是政治哲学或政治理念的概念.     

"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".     

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     

"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…     

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.