共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
儒家修身理论及其现代价值浅析 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
中国古代儒家修身理论是建立在对人性的善恶问题予以追问的理论基础之上的,只有回答了这一问题,道德修养的可能性和必须性才是题中应有之义.由此形成了独特而丰富的修身原则和方法,即:立志乐道、涵养省察、内省自讼、知行相资.而这些修养原则和方法指向的价值目标则是圣人之境,即"内圣";其外在趋向则是"修己安人",即"外王".二者缺一不可.儒家的这一修身理路以及具体原则方向和趋向目标,具有较强的现代价值. 相似文献
2.
Katrin Froese 《Dao》2008,7(3):257-268
Kant and Confucius maintain that the art of becoming human is synonymous with the unending process of becoming moral. According
to Kant, I must imagine a world in which the universality of my maxims were possible, while realizing that if such a world existed, then morality
would disappear. Morality is an impossible possibility because it always meets resistance in our encounter with nature. According
to Confucius, human beings become moral by integrating themselves into the already meaningful natural order that is tian 天. Like Kant, he upholds the dignity of human beings. For Kant this dignity rests on the autonomy of each human being’s reason,
while for Confucius it is dependent upon our interconnection with each other, demanding ongoing self-extension. Despite these
differences, the two thinkers would concur that our efforts at humanization are unceasing and that we may never fully live
up to our human potential. 相似文献
3.
孔子和孟子是先秦儒家最重要的代表人物,他们的思想中都有着丰富的德治内容。管子虽是早期法家的代表,但思想中同样具有德治的内容。孔、孟与管子在德治思想上有着很大的相似性,在惠民爱民、正名、正身率下、以民为本、善政措施、选贤任能等方面有着诸多的一致之处。但出于各自学派的立场,孔、孟与管子在德治与法治的关系、德治的目标与特征、德治的人性论的出发点等方面也存在着差异。 相似文献
4.
民族道德与社会政治道德具有不可分割的关系。一般说来,民族道德易受制于政治道德,而民族道德又会反作用于政治道德,同时,民族道德与政治道德作为一种有联系的精神实体,又会在相互影响、相互作用的过程中协调发展。 相似文献
5.
民族和宗教虽然没有必然联系,但二者之间却又联系得非常密切。这看起来很矛盾,却是事实。脱离开民族实体去看待宗教是不对的;完全从民族的角度去看待宗教亦是不对的。就民族道德与宗教道德的相互关系而言,民族道德与宗教道德不仅相互联系,也相互作用;就民族道德与宗教道德各自的特点而言,民族道德重在自律,宗教道德重在他律。 相似文献
6.
在民族国家特别是多民族国家中,如何看待并处理好民族道德与国家道德的关系,是一个事关民族利益和国家利益的大问题。从民族道德与国家道德的关系看,民族道德统一于国家道德,民族利己主义是为国家道德所不容的,民族道德与国家道德的最高原则是无产阶级国际主义。必须用前瞻性的战略眼光来看待并认识这一问题,因为它事关民族与国家的长远利益,对构建和谐民族、和谐国家、和谐社会均具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Samantha Vice 《Ethical Theory and Moral Practice》2011,14(2):169-184
Our attitude towards cynicism is ambivalent: On the one hand we condemn it as a character failing and a trend that is undermining
political and social life; on the other hand, we are often impressed by the apparent realism and honesty of the cynic. My
aim in this paper is to offer an account of cynicism that can explain both our attraction and aversion. After defending a
particular conception of cynicism, I argue that most of the work in explaining the fault of cynicism can be done by referring
not to the cynic’s beliefs about humanity, but to the attitude cultivated as a response to that belief. This attitude is hostile to the virtues of faith, hope and charity, upon which relationships
and our sense of moral community depend. In conclusion, I suggest that holding the cynical belief is itself immoral, and that
cynicism is disrespectful and destructive of morality. 相似文献
16.
Gilberto Gomes 《Australasian journal of philosophy》2013,91(3):375-387
Claims that necessary and sufficient conditions are not converse relations are discussed, as well as the related claim that If A, then B is not equivalent to A only if B. The analysis of alleged counterexamples has shown, among other things, how necessary and sufficient conditions should be understood, especially in the case of causal conditions, and the importance of distinguishing sufficient-cause conditionals from necessary-cause conditionals. It is concluded that necessary and sufficient conditions, adequately interpreted, are converse relations in all cases. 相似文献
17.
Alan Carter 《The Philosophical quarterly》2003,53(211):161-180
What might be termed 'the problem of morality' concerns how freedom–restricting principles may be justified, given that we value our freedom. Perhaps an answer can be found in freedom itself. For if the most obvious reason for rejecting moral demands is that they invade one's personal freedom, then the price of freedom from invasive demands that others would otherwise make may well require everyone accepting freedom in general, say, as a value that provides sufficient reason for adhering to principles that serve to maximize, or at least safeguard, freedom in general. But then it is precisely such a value, freedom in general, which can be argued to ground an adequate moral system. Hence whereas the value of freedom appears at first sight to pose problems for moral systems, it can be employed to ground a certain variety of them. 相似文献
18.
19.
20.
Brian Ellis 《Sophia》2011,50(1):135-139
A theory of morality acceptable to humanists must be one that can be accepted independently of religion. In this paper, I
argue that while there is such a theory, it is a non-standard one, and its acceptance would have some far-reaching consequences.
As one might expect, the theory is similar to others in various ways. But it is not the same as any of them. Indeed, it is
a radically new theory. Like Hume’s ethics, it is founded on our natural sociability, and feelings of empathy for others.
Like Aristotle’s theory, it incorporates an ethics of virtue. Like Kant’s theory, it regards the set of moral principles as
those appropriate for a socially ideal society. But unlike Kant’s theory, it is essentially utilitarian. I call it ‘social
contractual utilitarianism’. 相似文献