善如何可能?圣人如何可能?——韩非子的人性论及内圣外王思想

韩非子的人性论是由"圣人"之聪明睿智之性、虚静无为之心与"众人"之好利之性、欲利之心共同构成的二元结构。人性与人心,是一个好利与向善的综合体。人性好利决定人情好利,但聪明睿智之性、虚静无为之心却能节制自身欲望,向"道"靠拢,并最终"体道"。人性虽不蕴含善性,但却能萌生向善的能力。人能体道,成为"圣人"。人世之善,源自"圣人",而最终源自"道"。韩非子亦有"内圣外王"思想。"内圣"必然要求"外王",欲实现"外王",必须借助君主。王必霸、霸必王,是韩非子王霸观念的显著特征。     

大善:东方伦理道德的制高点

<正>对于东方文明之象征——儒、释、道的精髓,有人概括为"生命之学",有人概括为"和文化",有人概括为"包容精神",有人概括为"内求修身、克己谦让"之理念,如此等等,都有启人哲思之益。比丘本性今拟以"大善"来统合东方文明,尤其东方文明中的伦理与道德,即东方文明是教人舍恶从善之道,是关于善的追求与实践之道。在东方文明中,善,是天地宇宙之理,是人性人心之本,是一切人生存生活的立身处世之基。善,是东方文明的核心精华,是东方伦理道德的制     

《易传》人性论探微

对<系辞>等传中论及人性及其与天道之关系的文字,古今学者的理解各有心得.作者认为,行<系辞>论性语义为一阴一阳的运行变化称之为道,人从天道变化中得到了善,人性使天道赋予人的这种善得到了完成和显现.并且认为,<易传>、<中庸>、<孟子>实际都是认为"性自命出,命从天降"的,都是在人性与天道有一致性的意义上肯定人性善的,故否定<易传>有性善论,以为<易>、<庸>、<孟>的人性说致思路数不同的观点,都是不合实际的.作者又认为,将天道赋予人道正义的意义又返而以支撑人道原则,自<易传>已然,宋儒的天道性命学说与此是一脉相承的,故否定理学与先秦儒学的联系也是不合事实的.作者还认为,中国古代思想家宣扬性善论的主题是弘扬理性,强化人们对人道的自觉与自信,其中凝聚的积极善良的正气,乃是我们民族文化的元神.     

荀子的道德修养论探析

荀子是我国古代最著名的性恶论者。他一方面从人的自然性出发,提出人性本恶论;另一方面又从人的社会性出发,提出了“化性起伪”的人性改造论和道德修养论。荀子肯定了性本恶之人在礼义法度等外在道德规范的约束下不断弃恶从善、积善成德的可能性。他提出的以追求圣人和君子为人生境界的道德修养理论,在现代社会仍具有重要价值。     

“道德形上学”中的“圆善”证成工夫与境界析论

“圆善”问题是康德和牟宗三共同关注的话题。不同于康德以“设准”达至信仰的解决路径，牟宗三以建构“道德形上学”的方式、通过工夫修养之“呈现”来体验道的形上本体，无疑是一创新。经过牟宗三的吸收与创造性转化，其所谓“道德形上学”与“圆善”能否实现康德意义的“德福一致”,似仍有较大讨论空间。本文拟在前贤所论基础之上，对此问题尝试做一些补充性说明，从牟先生“道德形上学”中的“横摄”等义中拓展出“横向”“横摄”与“横讲”三种工夫路径与方法；并从“境界形态形上学”与“实有形态形上学”合一出发，进一步挖掘“道德形上学”中可能蕴藏的境界、工夫说在解决“圆善”问题上所具有的理论潜力。     

论康德的德福一致结构

德福一致几乎是所有伦理理论都追求的德福结构,问题的关键在于德福如何一致,即德福一致的结构是怎样的.康德的道德哲学基于人的道德性与自然性的关系、善恶原则共居的特性,将人的意志在遵循自己的义务时的道德性意向和力量概括为德性,将幸福限定在人作为自然存在者所不可避免地要追求的状态上,从而构建了德性与幸福一致的结构,即德性与配享的幸福相一致的结构.     

高贵的情操

宋代大儒陆子说,东海有圣人出,此心此理同,西海有圣人出,此心此理亦同。当今之世,无论东西方,无论宗教文化以什么为主流,善良、同情、慈悲、正直都是基本的价值观。此处的“高贵情操”不正是东西方人民都应培养、保守的善端,不都是佛性或人性的自然流露么?     

耶儒成圣论比较研究

基督教和儒教对人是否能成圣均给予肯定的答案.但耶儒对上帝/天与人的界定以及二者关系的看法差异巨大:基督教全善之上帝和有罪之人是分离的关系,儒教至善天道和本善人性是合一的关系.所以在成圣论上也有很大的不同,这突出表现在成圣可能性的根据、圣人的标准以及成圣的努力方向三个方面.     

老庄善恶观试探

老庄所谓心、性是两个绝对不同的概念.其他事物从于性,而人从于心.人之善与恶在于心之用.圣人、至人代表着老庄所谓善,圣人、至人非由其本性成就,而由心之修养工夫成就,所以道德之根源在于心.人之违背本性与道,代表着老庄所谓恶,人违背本性与道亦由人之心所起,所以恶亦源于心.性源于道,性与道是相通的.心之用合于本性、合于道即为善,违背本性、违背道即为恶,所以性与道是老庄之善恶标准.心合于性与道,是老庄修养工夫之目标.     

合乎人的秩序与合秩序的人

重建秩序的思考开启了中国的哲学时代，秩序问题从此成为中国哲学的核心问题。就儒家而言，天赐的秩序一变而为生于人的秩序，围绕着人和秩序的关系，人体、人情、人性、人心、人伦和人道占据了思想世界的中心。合乎人的秩序凸显了“人是什么”问题的关键意义，并奠定了秩序哲学的基础。同时，合秩序的人的思考也从形体、情感深入到人心、人性的层面，与合乎人的秩序一起确立起秩序的合理性。儒家形上学以寻求秩序根据为枢纽，发展出内在的心性和超越的天道两个贯通的维度，统一在“道”的观念之中，可以称之为秩序形上学。     

东西方文化的人性观差异及其对道德认知的影响

人性观,即认为人性究竟是本善的还是本恶的,不仅是哲学思辨的焦点,也是日常生活中形成的一种常人理论(lay theory)。对于东西方文化传统的检视表明,西方文化占主导地位的是性恶论人性观,东方文化占主导地位的则是性善论人性观。研究通过实证数据支持了这一结论,发现中国被试相对于美国被试,对于人性的主观评定更倾向于性善的一端(研究1)。这种人性观差异导致中国被试在道德方面,尤其是规范性道德(行善)方面,对人提出了更高的要求(研究1),并且这种因果关系得到了启动实验的支持(研究2)。这些研究结果有助于人们更好地理解文化如何塑造了人们对于人性和道德的看法。     

Morality,reasoning and upbringing

This paper examines the relationship between morality and reasoning in a general sense. Following a broadly Aristotelian framework, it is shown that reasoning well about morality requires good character and a grounding in virtue and experience. Topic neutral ‘critical thinking’ on its own is not enough and may even be detrimental to morality. This has important consequences both for philosophy and for education. While morality is objective and universal, it should not be seen purely in terms of the intellectual grasp of true propositions. As Simone Weil shows, it emerges from very basic aspects of our nature. As well as reasoning in an abstract sense we need what Pascal calls esprit de finesse based in our humanity as a whole, in sens, raison et coeur. The paper concludes with some reflections on our propensity to fail morally and on the relationship between virtue and happiness.     

What Do Happiness Studies Study?

What do, or should, happiness studies study? Everything to which we refer with the word ‘‘happiness’’ is worth some study. But the study of subjective states covers only part of the ground covered by the word ‘‘happiness’’ and by no means all the ground central to understanding happiness. On the central use of ‘‘happiness,’’ to be happy is to be glad or satisfied or content, which suggests subjectivity, with having a good measure of what is important in life, which suggests objectivity. We find the same suggestion of both subjectivity and objectivity in the list of what enhances the quality of life. There are strong arguments in favour both of the subjectivity of what enhances life and of its objectivity. I argue that neither is right, that the story is more complicated. The conclusion of the story is that there is a list of several non-reducible features that contribute to the quality of a characteristic human life, and that anything that contributes to the quality of any human life will be one or other of these features. But there is a problem. When we speak of the quality of a human life, there may be no one thing we have in mind. Perhaps some of us are not disagreeing with one another over the nature of a ‘‘happy’’ life but speaking of different things.     

浅谈《管子》中环境哲学思想

面对着日益严重的环境危机,今天的人们已经逐渐意识到问题的重要性和迫切性。然而,人们对环境问题的认识仍然存在着严重的局限考虑——自然环境。这种片面的认识是不利于环境问题的根本解决。面对今天复杂、多向的环境问题,《管子》可以提供我们一些有益的启示：以＂道＂为核心的有机整体主义自然观和具体的一些自然资源保护措施;包含着经济正义、法律正义等的社会环境思想;心灵和谐的人文环境思想;自然、社会、人文整体主义的＂一体之治＂思想等。     

Response to Stuart Rennie's ‘Elegant variations’

Abstract

In Happiness, Tabensky equates the notion of happiness to Aristotelian eudaimonia. I shall claim that doing so amounts to equating two concepts that moderns cannot conceptually equate, namely, the good for a person and the good person or good life. In §2 I examine the way in which Tabensky deals with this issue and claim that his idea of happiness is as problematic for us moderns as is any translation of the notion of eudaimonia in terms of happiness. Naturally, if happiness understood as eudaimonia is ambiguous, so will be the notion of a desire for happiness, which we find at the core of Tabensky’s whole project. In §3 I shall be concerned with another aspect of the desire for happiness; namely, its alleged self-justifying nature. I will attempt to undermine the idea that this desire is self-justifying by undermining the criterion on which Tabensky takes self-justifiability to rest, i.e. its basicness, but also by shedding doubt on the idea that there is such a thing as an ultimate basic principle and, even if there were, that it is what Tabensky calls the eudaimon principle.     

INTERNISTS OF THE MIND OR PHYSICIANS OF THE SOUL: DOES PSYCHIATRY NEED A PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY?

Although psychiatry is interested in what both body and mind contribute to behavior, it sometimes emphasizes one more than the other. Since the early 1980s, American psychiatry has shifted its interest from mind and psyche to body and brain. Neuroscience and psychopharmacology are increasingly at the core of psychiatry. Some experts claim that psychiatry is no longer interested in problems in living and positive goals such as mental health, happiness, and morality but rather has narrowed its focus to mental disorders addressed with psychotropic drugs. In view of this trend, psychiatry needs to confront two questions in social philosophy. If it is no longer directly concerned with health and happiness, how does it relate to these positive goals? And how does it relate as a medical institution to religious institutions, schools, and other organizations that directly promote health, happiness, morality, and the purposes of life? It is not enough for psychiatry to renounce its moral role; its practices still shape cultural values. Psychiatry should take more responsibility for developing a public philosophy that addresses these issues.     

“乐”——中国人的主观幸福感与传统文化中的幸福观

中国人的幸福感重视人际与集体的和谐, 重视精神的感受。这样的幸福感特点很大程度上受传统文化中幸福观的影响。儒、道、佛三大流派各有自己独特的幸福观：儒家既承认父母俱存、兄弟无故的现实感性之乐, 又强调追求仁义的理性之乐; 道家提倡超越现实的顺应自然之乐和祸福相依的幸福观; 佛家则讲求进入涅槃和普渡众生之乐。各家在追求理想人格、追求审美的过程中, 各自发展又互相融合, 形成对中国人幸福感影响深远的三大幸福观：(1)不以个人情感为重点而代之以人际关系和社会和谐的集体主义幸福观; (2)幸福感与道德感、审美感相连; (3)追求理性之乐。     

老子的水性人格理论及其现实意义

老子认为,人性是源于道的朴,具有主动性、柔弱性、复归倾向和自我意识。水性兼具人性和道性。圣人的人格是水性人格,其结构包括“食母”需要、质朴的自我意识和柔弱处世三个组成部分。在环境无条件的积极关注之下,个体通过致虚守静和以“重静”规约“轻躁”的努力,就可以形成水性人格。老子的水性人格理论,对于人格理论的构建和健全人格的培养都具有一定的启示价值。     

基于传统人性论的德育思考

传统人性论蕴含着丰富的德育资源,为我们提供了多方厩的经验、教训和启示：教化成善,发挥德育潜移默化的作用;顺乎人性,坚持德育中和适度的原则;修身养性,注重道德主体自觉的培养;以人为本,落实德育科学发展的理念。     

告子人性论思想新思考——以卢梭人性论思想为参照

人性论的研究有两条进路,一是从自然的层面上研究人性,另一是从道德形而上学的层面上研究人性。孟子的研究显然属于后者,而告子属于前者。从自然的层面研究人性并不意味着肤浅。例如,虽然告子的人性论思想往往被理解为材质之性,但实际上告子的人性论思想远不仅此,告子的人性论思想是复杂且深刻的。通过阅读卢梭对于人性的理解,我们发现卢梭与告子有许多相似之处。以卢梭的人性论思想为参照来理解告子的人性论思想,不仅可以加深对告子思想的理解,同时,卢梭的一些观点也是对告子思想的一种解释或者补充。