"作为哲学研究工具的中国"--弗朗索瓦·朱利安与蒂埃里·扎尔科内谈话录

自从康德的《纯粹理性批判》问世以来,“哥白尼革命”一词在许多领域都被用以贴切地说明与康德为哲学带来的转变有同等意义的革命性转变。在《从外面(中国)思考:远东访谈录》[1]一书中对哲学家兼汉学家弗朗索瓦·朱利安进行提问的蒂埃里·马尔谢塞写道,这本书“不啻提出了重新启动‘离中心’这一伟大工作的动议,即定义我们的现代性———实际上是一次新的‘哥白尼颠覆’”。[2]朱利安解释说,“中国和西方的对峙是当代最伟大的问题之一”,“中国的思想为我们展示了不同的内在连贯关系”,它“还使我们重新思考我们理智之后的先入之见”,因此中…     

道德实践的神圣化——王阳明"事上致良知"的比较哲学解读

在超越佛道和回应朱学的背景下,阳明强调"事上磨练"优于"静坐",将"事"视为"良知"自然发露落实和成就提升的场域;阐发"致良知"重于"讲求节目",说明克去私欲而听从良知召唤才是功夫最要紧处."事上致良知"具有长期艰巨性、实践性、扩充性、当下性和持续性的重要特质,是沟通内圣与外王、意志与行动、精神体验与日常生活的重要途径...     

回眸与展望--跨世纪的中国马克思主义哲学研究

自 1 978年思想解放运动以来 ,中国马克思主义哲学研究的发展在中国哲学的变革中一直扮演着主角。在“九五”期间 ,研究的最重要的特点是新的研究信念基本建立、新的研究范式基本形成。这些研究成果和 2 0世纪末对马克思主义哲学发展历程的反思 ,以及对 2 1世纪马克思主义哲学“应该的”发展前景的思考 ,都反映出经历了 2 0多年思想解放和与国际哲学界的对话 ,中国的马克思主义哲学研究范式的格式塔转换已经开始。一、“九五”中国马克思主义哲学研究的主要成果与研究特点“九五”期间 ,我国马克思主义哲学研究成果较为丰富。在《哲学研究》…     

Conversation: The challenges of teaching in a “nano department”

A panel at the 2016 American Academy of Religion conference staged, taped, transcribed, and edited this conversation about the challenges and opportunities of teaching in a “nano department” – an undergraduate religion or religious studies department (or combined religion and philosophy department) with only one, two, or three faculty members. Two things quickly become evident: one is the impossibility of coverage of the full religious studies curriculum, and the other is the necessity for collaboration with other departments. Neither of these is unique to nano departments, but there exists an intimacy between students and faculty in small departments, a necessary freedom to rethink the place of the study of religion in the liberal arts curriculum, and a disruptive value in what can be critiqued and contributed from a marginalized position. Arguably, nano departments are the canaries in the academic coal mine, charting the future of the humanities that cannot be discerned from the vantage point of Research‐1 contexts.     

Bill Wallace (A Conversation in a Bar)

The dialogue is concerned to do two things. In the first place it seeks to display the extreme difficulty of discussing conceptual issues with students whose academic backgrounds are the social sciences. Its point is not to criticize any element of those disciplines per se, but to illustrate the sort of misunderstandings which many beginning students appear to acquire from them. The second point is to offer a reminder that perhaps the part of philosophizing which requires the most care is the stating of just the question which one wishes to raise ‐ the getting into position, as it were, to think to any end.