“第二”的价值

正一教授在课堂上问:世界第一高峰是哪座?大家脱口而出:珠穆朗玛峰。又问:世界第二高峰呢?台下一片沉默。这种"记得第一,遗忘第二"的现象,乃至由此衍生的"只认第一,不认第二"心理,在我们的社会上还较为广泛地存在着。这在一定程度上影响了人们的行为选择。我们常说"不想当元帅的士兵不是好士兵",但也不是所有     

奔向明天的辉煌

我想，在座诸位对拿破仑一定不陌生，他那只有一米六几的小个子，和他那句“不想当将军的士兵，就不是好士兵”的豪言同样的著名。诸位可能会误会，以为我是来介绍拿破仑的，或是来评论那句名言的。不是，我是想引用拿破仑在两百多年前对中国的评价。他说：“中国是一头沉睡的雄狮，我们祈祷它不要醒来。否则，它将使整个世界地覆天翻!”     

“卖好烟吗?”

这件事发生在北京某食品商店里。一位年轻人走进商店。他走到卖香烟的柜台前,问柜台里面的售货员:“同志,这里有好烟卖吗?”售货员是一位女同志。她看了年轻人一眼,然后回答说:“我们卖的烟都是好烟!我们从来不卖坏烟!”年轻人:“嗨!我不是这个意思。我是问这里有没有好一点的香烟。”售货员:“我们卖的烟都不坏。”于是,两个人之间就你一句我一句地争论起来了。我们不想在此评论谁是谁非。我们仅想     

“低”有“低”的韵味

世上事,宜高则高,宜低则低。高薪、高寿、高兴,高科技、高效益、高速度……人皆爱之,"诺奖"级的精英、精彩、精品,越多越好。不想当元帅的士兵不是好士兵。但"万丈高楼平地起","千里之行始于足下",再高明的建筑师,也得从夯实地基开始。一切"高"都是从"低"处起来的。一座城市的文明评价,不在于其楼多高、街多宽、富人多阔,而在于其小街陋巷是否平整,公共厕所是否洁净,平民收入是否小康。一位官员的官德评价,不在其公共场合的侃     

谨防对孩子“语言伤害”

“你不可救药,无可挽救了”、“你这孩子就是贪玩,不是读书的料”、“你这孩子怎么这样没有记性,真是木瓜脑袋”、“某某与你同龄样样都行,就你不行”、“像你这样,今后只能上街拉板车混饭吃了”,等等,在平时的课堂上和家庭教育中,我们经常会听到老师和家长这样训斥孩子。在老师和家长看来一句无关紧要的训斥,就有可能在孩子的心灵世界里造成持续的阴影,从而伤害孩子的感情,侮辱孩子的人格,损害孩子的自尊。相比于体罚的伤害,有的孩子把这种来自成人侮辱歧视性语言对自己造成的伤害称为“语言伤害”。据“中国少年儿童平安行动”组委会最近…     

试析“没有缺点的庸才”

在用人的问题上,曾经有这样一种说法:“宁用有这样或那样缺点的能人,不用没有缺点的庸才”。我认为这是不妥当的。我们这里不管它在实践上是否行得通,也不管它在理论上如何,只从逻辑上加以分析。上述说法的前一分句“宁用有这样或那样缺点的能人”,在逻辑上似乎还通,而后一分句“不用没有缺点的庸才”,便违反逻辑规律了。矛盾律要求:在同一个思维过程中思想不能自相矛盾。“没有缺点的庸才”的中心语是“庸才”,前面用了“没有缺点”加以限制。所谓“庸才”     

是将军，亦是勤务兵——小议班主任角色的复杂化

“不想当将军的士兵，不是好士兵。”这句话不知激励了多少人，可是谁又曾想过，有一个职业同时兼备了将军与士兵这两种角色，甚至更多职业功能，那就是我们的班主任。一个班级带的久了，那些孩子做事的风格潜移默化中就有了这位班主任的影子，可想而知班主任该有多大的魅力。换言之，班主任在日常工作中付出了多少时间与心血在那些孩子身上。班主任不仅在学校要时刻观察着“他的孩子”，甚至下班回到家还要心系孩子，甚至半夜失眠也会想他们，这不是做作，也不是自己的意志所能改变的，这就是班主任的常态。     

关于判断句中的“否定”

判断按质分有肯定判断和否定判断两类。肯定判断通常用联项“是”表示,否定判断通常用联项“不是”表示。照说,它们之间的区别已经是泾渭分明的了。但是,很有些时候、很有些场合,为了某些特别需要,肯定判断却用否定的形式来表达。这样一来,某个判断是肯定还是否定,就不是那么瓜清水白,丁丁卯卯的了。鲁迅的著名作品《阿Q正传》里有这样一句:“其实他的生活,倒也并不比造反之前反艰难”,便是     

走出心灵牢狱

曾经有三个前美军士兵,站在华盛顿的越战纪念碑前,其中一个问道：你已经宽恕那些抓你做俘虏的人了吗？第二个士兵回答：我永远不会宽恕他们。第三个士兵评论说：这样,你仍然是一个囚徒！显然,回答“我永远不会宽恕他们”的士兵心中有“狱”,所囚的不是别人,正是自己。事实也是这样,不宽恕别人就是不放过自己。     

“不是”辩

“是”是判断动词,它的后置成分是判断宾语,这已经被人们所承认。然而,对“不是”,人们还没有取得一致的意见。很多人认为“不是”是偏正词组(前偏后正),在句子中,“不”充当判断动词谓语“是”的状语,如: ①他[不]是教师。②中国[不]是资本主义国家。把“不是”当作词组,在句中分别充当状语和谓语,无论从语法角度分析,还     

"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.