《论语》"思无邪"与孔子的诗教思想

《论语》各篇材料看似任意罗列,仿佛没有任何秩序,其实不然。孔子评论《诗经》日“思无邪”,该章被编排在《为政》篇的第二章,十分耐人寻味。实际上,“思无邪”被排在这样的位置,也影响到了人们对《论语》的认识。其实,《为政》篇以孔子“为政以德”的政治思想为主旨,孔子《诗》教思想的本质是“政教”,从新出土的上博竹书《诗论》便可以看出孔子《诗》教思想的“德教”内涵,从而可以更准确地理解“思无邪”的含义,也可加深我们对《论语》内在结构的认识。     

“为政以德”—孔子的政治伦理学说

孔子在同生徒们谈论学问的时侯,以及同王侯们谈论国事的时候,始终是把伦理思想同政治思想联系在一起的。其鲜明标志,就是他所讲的“为政以德”(《论语·为政》以下凡引此书只注篇名)。为了把孔子“为政以德”这句话的具体内容了解得比较透彻,有必要首先把这句话中的“政”和“德”这两个基本概念的含义作一番深入的探讨。     

论孔子的“为政以德”

《论语,为政》篇有两段关于孔子政治思想的记载: 为政以德,譬如北辰,居其所,而众星共之。道之以政,齐之以刑,民免而无耻;道之以德,齐之以礼,有耻且格。“为政以德”,从统一说明德与政的关系,“道之以政,……道之以德”,从对立说明德与政的关系;德与政的对立,指出两种不同的政治态度,德与政的统一,是孔子政治思想的总要求。朱熹在解说“为政以德”的时候,提出:“政之为言正也,所     

论“为政以德”与“王霸之辨”

"为政以德"是孔子以至整个儒家最重要的政治思想,本义指统治者修德而安人安百姓,但它还有另一含义,即将道德作为政治手段。前者是孔子"义利之辨"与道德自律的要求,后者是由其民本主义立场所逼显。孟子与荀子"王霸之辨"思想的源头正是孔子的"为政以德",他们分别将它向重德性的"为政以仁"与重规范的"为政以礼"发展。孟子除收紧在统治者的道德存心上论"王霸异质"外,还坚持霸道能向王道转进的观点,这与"为政以德"的两层含义及其关系有关。荀子的王道理想重视外在合法性的礼,却忽视了"为政以德"的本义。"为政以德"虽为孔、孟、荀所共倡,但它实际上无法在中国传统政治体制下真正充分展开。     

论传统道德及其现代承转

一、从“为政以德”思想到“以德治国”方略 (一)为政以德思想 孔子曰:“为政以德,譬如北辰,居其所而众星拱之。”(《论语·为政》)把道德教化比做是众星环绕的核心北极星,这是儒家对德治思想的形象比喻。按照《论语疏义》的解释:“明明德以亲民,本仁心以施仁政,保民而王,非自求尊荣与富贵也,是谓为政以德。”这里“为政以德”要义有三:一     

孔子的政治伦理思想及其现实意义——兼论其在祖国和平统一的作用

孔子“为政以德”的政治伦理思想以“仁”为基础,以“利民”为价值导向,以实现社会“大同”为理想目标。为此,他要求治国者自身不断加强道德修养,坚持人道主义的伦理原则,选贤任能,反对战争,维护和平。坚持和发扬孔子的政治伦理思想,对于实现海峡两岸的和平统一具有重要现实意义。     

儒家社会管理学说评析

司马谈在议论古代诸子百家要旨时认为，中国古代思想的各家各派，尽管立论不同，持义各异，其共同目的却都在于如何管理好国家。“夫阴阳、儒、墨、名、法、道德，此务为治者也”。“务为治者”一语，恰如其分地点明了包括儒家在内的中国古代思想的管理学意义。儒学作为显学，在中国古代管理思想史和传统社会管理实践中具有特殊的地位和作用。在孔于那里，就明确提出了“为政以德”和“齐之以礼”（《论语·为政》）的基本管理思想，并把管理活动看成是始于“修己”而终于“安人”的社会协调过程。孔子的社会管理思想，经过后儒的不断深化和…     

“为政以德”与古代官僚政体建构

孔子提出的“为政以德”命题,并不是简单的从政道德教化,在更深刻的意义上,此命题是春秋时期中国官僚体制转变趋势的先声。春秋时期,夏商周以来传统的血缘宗法体制已呈崩解之势,孔子“为政以德”命题的提出,对鲁国政治活动的切身参与,以及投身“私学”教育对专门政治人才的培养,为新官僚体制下士人之以德参政进行了重要的理论思考和实践探索。在中国政治体制发展史上,“为政以德”命题具有标志性意义,在当代中国政治实践中也具有现实价值。     

孔子“为政以德”辨析

通过学术史的梳理可知,对"为政以德"的解释有无为与德治两种争议,而通过对《论语》和上博楚简《论语》类文献的比较研究则会发现:"为政以德"仍当以"德治主义"的解释为准,"为政以德"并非仅指道德教化和道德表率,而是贯穿于为政各个方面的基本原则;"德"不能从形上的德性去解释,而应当从经验的德行去解释;与"为政以德"关系密切的"无为而治",亦非指为政的方式,而是指为政的效验。     

荀子"刑、德"思想探析

荀子“刑”、“德”思想自有其独特的学术品格,但溯其源流,大抵远绍周公“明德慎罚”思想,近承孔子“为政以德”、“先教后诛”思想,下启董仲舒“德主刑辅”思想,诸多思想与表述甚至直接袭用《尚书》等书、引证孔子等语录事迹,在先秦儒家刑德思想发展系统中是不可或缺的重要一环。     

"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.