论亚里士多德的善

善是存在的本体。它是幸福。最完美的幸福是沉思。对于这种活动,人们不能够言说（称赞）。善是好。好是主体的私意的表达。这意味着善依据于主体的自愿、私意,并能够带来欢乐。善是真它陈述了现象的关系。真仅仅关注现象而不是作为存在的真正的善因此,真的善其实并不真。     

亚里士多德伦理学的两个起点:Endoxa与良好的教养

本文从亚里士多德<尼各马可伦理学>I.4,1095a30-b9关于研究方法的论述入手,讨论亚里士多德伦理学在理论和实践上的两个起点--endoxa和良好的教养.前者与亚里士多德的辩证法结合保证伦理学可以达到知识,而后者则是伦理实践者成为好人的必要条件.在此分析的基础上,我得出了亚里士多德实践哲学的两个基本特征--认知乐观主义与"实践悲观主义",而亚里士多德以伦理学为基础的政治哲学则提供了将认知与实践统一起来,从而消除"实践悲观主义"的途径.     

Hume's refutation of the cosmological argument

Conclusion Let me summarize the results of this paper in a way that seems fitting to Hume's discussion of the cosmological argument. There are some philosophers who adopt the most stringent empiricist principles. Such men and women would reject any notion of necessity that is not analytic, and for this reason they would never admit a proof of the necessary existence of anything. Other philosophers, though empiricists, are not so dogmatic. They question the need for, not the coherence of, necessary existence. They believe that the material universe is nothing over and above the sum of its material parts and, thus, see no reason to conclude that a necessary being exists based on PSR. Still others are driven by a rationalist persuasion. They would gladly recognize the existence of almost anything provided it be proven by reason and argument. When they confront the cosmological argument they do indeed find it compelling but still see no reason to conclude that God, or any transcendent being, necessarily exists. The entity established need be nothing more than the universe itself. Therefore, as Hume has demonstrated, no philosopher need accept the conclusion of the cosmological argument.     

宗喀巴破斥"无分别"说的实质

"无分别"说是八世纪晚期"吐蕃僧诤"中汉僧的代表人物摩诃衍的主要主张,它在当时和后世的藏传佛教中都有一定的影响.但是宗喀巴大师在<菩提道次第广论>中对这一主张进行了彻底的破斥,从而维护了他所强调的智慧方便双修、止观双运等法门,并重新解释了大乘经典中关于"无分别"的经文.随着宗喀巴大师对"无分别"说破斥的展开,汉藏佛教的某些分歧也徐徐展开.     

Aristotle's Ethics Retranslated

Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Translation (with historical introduction) by Christopher Rowe, philosophical introduction and commentary by Sarah Broadie.     

Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts

The knowledge revision components framework (KReC) outlines the basic comprehension processes and text factors that can be accentuated to increase the potential for knowledge revision during reading. The goal of the present study was to explore source credibility as one such text factor. In Experiment 1, we established the utility of a set of refutation texts in influencing knowledge revision. Participants read ten refutation and ten control texts. The participants had faster reading times and higher posttest scores for the refutation than for the control texts, providing evidence for knowledge revision. In Experiment 2, we examined the influence of source credibility under normal reading conditions. Participants read 20 refutation texts, ten with high-credibility and ten with low-credibility sources. The reading times and posttest scores suggested that knowledge revision unfolded successfully, independent of credibility. Using the same texts, in Experiment 3 we examined the influence of direct instructions that made the credibility of the source of information more salient. When the credibility of the source was made salient, the revision process was disrupted in the low-credibility condition, as evidenced by slower reading times and lower posttest scores than in the high-credibility condition. The results add to our understanding of the factors that constrain knowledge revision during the reading of refutation texts, and are discussed in the context of the extant literature and KReC.