邵雍先天学的两个层面:象数学与本体论——兼论朱熹对邵雍先天学的误读

邵雍是易学大家,又是北宋五子之一,他的学术贡献在于其先天学的建构.邵雍先天学可分为先天象数学和先天学本体论两个层面.先天象数学以易图为基础,以易数推衍为形式,建构了庞大的数理哲学体系,它们表达了邵雍对宇宙万物运行规律的认识;先天学本体论对宇宙进行本体论分析,认为太极或者天地之心既是宇宙的存在根据,也是人类的价值本体,它们表达了邵雍对宇宙和人生之本体的认识.但是,传统学术史对邵雍先天学的解读,往往集中在先天象数学的层面,而忽视了先天学本体论,这是一个误读,朱熹就是如此误读的一个典型.     

二程及其弟子对邵雍先天易学之两极态度辨析

二程兄弟认为,邵雍的先天易学象数模式"无所用于世",与他们自己体贴"天理"以求明体达用的儒学旨趣迥异。他们对邵雍先天易学一边口上赞誉有加,一边却极不认可,甚至视之为术数。与二程兄弟不甚认可邵雍先天易学相比,其门人弟子中却不乏对先天易学非常认可者,如杨时、尹焞以及后期影响力较大的四传弟子朱熹等人。此中,朱熹立足其理一分殊的理气观,调和易学象数与义理,与二程视角不尽相同,但从侧面透出不尽认同二程对先天易学的理解。基于此,本文将考察二程兄弟及其门人对先天易学的两极态度及相关评论,以理解和把握邵雍以后先天易学的流传中所遭遇的种种问题。     

论邵雍先天易学之天根月窟说及其影响

图书象数学的兴起是儒道融合的结果,对宋代易学和儒学的发展产生了深远影响。作为宋代图书象数学的代表,邵雍的先天易学内蕴着丰富的物理性命之学,尤以天根月窟说为其精髓。天根当静极而动之时,是阴极而将生之微阳;月窟当动极而静之时,是阳极而将生之微阴。通过天根月窟的观念,邵雍一则强调了阴阳"动静之间"的"神妙"之用,二则凸显了天地阴阳消息的"生生"之意。不唯如此,天根月窟说还含有独特的心性修养意义。此心性修养说以"以物观物"为核心理念,以"静"与"闲"为两大要旨。在后世,邵氏先天学及其天根月窟说对朱熹理气论的最终证成发挥了巨大作用,也为明代心学的发展提供了重要的思想资源。     

邵雍先天之学对时代的契应

邵雍以声音、律吕为例得到的启示,就是形之上、下的贯通问题.他的具有宏观背景的"先天之学",以象数为中介,自时空角度做出形上层面的思考;并提示了认识论平台的出发点,由此为当时的儒学新体系构建做出贡献.     

黄宗羲《易学象数论》意旨发覆

黄宗羲《易学象数论》是一部系统探析与评判汉宋易学象数学与数术学的专门之作,其研究之高度与广度都远超局限于宋易或汉易的前贤与后学。后世对该书之认识与评价多局限于考据辨伪方面,既未能照见其所具之思想意义,又未能论及其总体之学术宗旨。该书前三卷论汉宋象数易说,黄宗羲以考论《河图》《洛书》与先天图为平生得意之笔。这些考论除了在考据上能发先儒所未发以外,在理论上则关涉到对理气关系的重新勘定。在认为汉宋象数易说多为"伪象"的同时,黄宗羲在该书中也试图建立他的易象学,其宗旨乃是将象数义理会归为一。后三卷论汉宋拟《易》援《易》之数术学,黄氏之首要目的是为了揭示此类数术学之真相,从而将之与《易》本身之象数区别开来,但其对数术学的肯认与研究还有更深层的原因,与其气化宇宙论、经世观念和历史演变观都有密切的关系。以今日之视野观之,该书由于过分强调经典之"真"而将与之不合之象数易说定之为"伪",没能看到汉宋象数易说在易学理论上的创新性及其在历史发展中的思想意义与价值,此为其局限性之所在。今日之易学象数学研究当承继前贤而再翻新篇。     

试论清代易学转型中的图学批判与汉学复萌

清初图学批判运动与乾嘉汉学复萌之间相隔数十年,两者在批判宋代以先天、河洛为代表的图书易学上秉持一致态度,但在对治《易》正途的理解上,前者认为当效法王弼、程颐之易学,以义理研习为务;而后者则高扬“汉学”大旗,力主恢复两汉象数易学的传统。因此,图学批判运动实与“汉学”无涉,清代易学中之“汉学”范畴理当适度缩减,将其起点延后至惠栋。“汉宋之争”说和“两派六宗”说分别将两汉象数易与宋代图书易、义理易与象数易相对立,然而两说均无法在二分法中合理安置象数易学、义理易学与图书易学的位次及关系。以象数、义理、图书三分,可以成为对历史上易学类型划分的修正方案。     

朱子易学之哲学的分析——通过《易学启蒙》理解"理"的"穷极"义

本文通过对朱熹<易学启蒙>的分析,考察作为象数易学和义理易学的基础的先天易学和后天易学的基本原理和相互关系,由此进一步研究作为象数易学和义理易学的共同基础的"理"的意味.朱熹的易学不是在象数和义理哪一个的立场上对两种易学的综合,而是试图确立易学的基础,进而把对理的意味的系统的解释和说明作为最终目标.     

汉代象数易占的典要化之失

不同于《易传》的"不可为典要"之说,汉代象数易占之学将易学进行了典要化。其学重视外在于古经文本的经验世界之象,以应然之天象对照实然之天象来判定人事的得失,卦爻象则充当联系人事之时空信息与应然之天象的中介符号,而卦爻辞在其理论中几无立锥之地,《易》之"意"亦不再重要——这是易学再度看重有待价值而对无待价值有所忽视后不可避免的结果。这样的易占理论只能从固定的时空信息中得出固定的应然天象及占断结果,再也无法合乎《易》意地从有限探知无限。     

邵雍先天易学探析——兼论朱熹对邵雍先天易学的别解

自邵雍先天学倡明以来,学者多以朱(熹)释邵(雍),褒贬不一。邵雍的先天易学,是以宇宙生化的方式铺开,通过纵向的体用和横向的变应关系,经由内在象数的交易生变,而形成先天图,揭示天道的生化之机。先天之宇宙论定位是体用、变应和交变的宏观视域。体用与变应是先天的两种作用方式。体必交而生后,体以变为用,变必有应。体用与变应又因交变常交织。邵雍的先天易学,本于先天、体用、交变和变应四个逻辑架构,于先天图之形成过程、图式结构和功用发挥上一以贯之。朱熹执着画前之易及其自然流露,从横图着眼阐发先天图某些阴阳流行对待之蕴,亦谓有所得。但其未能透彻邵雍之先天、体用、交变、应变,故于先天易学为别解者多。     

论来知德学术根柢是太极之学

长期以来,学界较多注意到了来知德的易学贡献,却少有人关注和阐发来知德的儒学思想,遑论来氏学术的整体逻辑。事实上,来知德首先是一个儒学理论上颇有自得之处的大儒,其次才是卓有建树的易学大家,而贯穿其儒学和易学的理论基础则是太极之学。来氏太极之学以理、气、数三概念为基础展开哲学建构,简言之,理为本体,理不离气,有气则有数,理气数结构是宇宙万物的存在方式。太极之学进入来氏儒学论域,既以理、气、数解释宇宙、社会和人生,又以理气存在论为基础展开理欲之辨,进一步提出格物克己、躬行明德的修养方法,并指出天理流行境界为修养归宿。太极之学进入以来氏易图学、来氏易象学和来氏义理易学为基本构成的来氏易学论域,太极之理成为来氏义理易学的目标和归宿,太极之气成为来氏易图学、来氏易象学的基础,太极之数(象数)成为来氏易象学的建构基础和基本内容。而从思想渊源看,来氏太极之学整合并发展了邵雍太极观和朱熹太极观,在中国传统哲学史中具有一定的意义。     

"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.     

"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".     

“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。     

"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.     

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.     

"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…     

The "Natural" and the "Formal"

The paper presents an argument against a metaphysical conception of logic according to which logic spells out a specific kind of mathematical structure that is somehow inherently related to our factual reasoning. In contrast, it is argued that it is always an empirical question as to whether a given mathematical structure really does captures a principle of reasoning. (More generally, it is argued that it is not meaningful to replace an empirical investigation of a thing by an investigation of its a priori analyzable structure without paying due attention to the question of whether it really is the structure of the thing in question.) It is proposed to elucidate the situation by distinguishing two essentially different realms with which our reason must deal: the realm of the natural, constituted by the things of our empirical world, and the realm of the formal, constituted by the structures that we use as prisms to view, to make sense of, and to reconstruct the world. It is suggested that this vantage point may throw light on many foundational problems of logic.