试论政治哲学的人性预设

马克思主义政治哲学将人的"个体性"与"社会性"统一起来的"价值人"作为其政治人性预设,并以此为现实的和逻辑的起点推演政治哲学的价值原则,进而在价值层面上描绘政治自由的蓝图,设定政治平等的路径,规范政治民主的图式,也为政治文明的构建提供价值导向,奠定理论基础.     

The Limits Of Human Nature

It has become increasingly common recently to construe human natureas setting some pretty stringent limits to moral endeavour. Many consequentialists, in particular, take considerations concerning human nature to defeat certain demanding norms that would otherwise follow from their theory.One argument is that certain commitments ground psychological incapacitiesthat prevent us from doing what would maximize the good. Another is that we would be likely to suffer some kind of psychological demoralization if we tried to become significantly more selfless. I argue that influential versions of both of these arguments underestimate our deliberative resources, and also fail to examine the kind of moral sources that may be able to sustain rigorous moral endeavour. Pessimism about our capacities for such endeavour results from the neglect of these factors, rather than from uncovering any significant limitations in human nature.     

论张载哲学中的感与性

张载关于感与性的讨论,在过去的研究中一直被看作他的思想体系的一个旁涉的论题,从而往往只在他的气学思想中附带地论及.本文旨在凸显有关感与性的思考在张载思想展开中的枢纽作用,及其在理解和把握张载思想的整体上的重要意义.     

作为人类思考活动的政治哲学

人类的思考都是对观念的思考,它的前提是对既有认识都持一定的怀疑态度。人类思考依其怀疑程度而分类,哲学思考是所有思考中最具怀疑精神的颠覆性思考。政治哲学是一切有关政治生活思考中最具颠覆性的思考,它的起点是人类的政治生活经验,但政治哲学追求的不是什么确定性或确定性的基础,也不是对现实政治生活的指导,而是对现有政治生活认识的批判与颠覆。政治哲学区别于其他形式哲学的地方在于,它始于政治经验,又保留着与政治经验进行联系的历史轨迹。     

Religious Political Parties and the Limits of Political Liberalism

Political parties have only recently become a subject of investigation in political theory. In this paper I analyse religious political parties in the context of John Rawls’s political liberalism. Rawlsian political liberalism, I argue, overly constrains the scope of democratic political contestation and especially for the kind of contestation channelled by parties. This restriction imposed upon political contestation risks undermining democracy and the development of the kind of democratic ethos that political liberalism cherishes. In this paper I therefore aim to provide a broader and more inclusive understanding of ‘reasonable’ political contestation, able to accommodate those parties (including religious ones) that political liberalism, as customarily understood, would exclude from the democratic realm. More specifically, I first embrace Muirhead and Rosenblum’s (Perspectives on Politics 4: 99–108 2006) idea that parties are ‘bilingual’ links between state and civil society and I draw its normative implications for party politics. Subsequently, I assess whether Rawls’s political liberalism is sufficiently inclusive to allow the presence of parties conveying religious and other comprehensive values. Due to Rawls’s thick conceptions of reasonableness and public reason, I argue, political liberalism risks seriously limiting the number and kinds of comprehensive values which may be channelled by political parties into the public political realm, and this may render it particularly inhospitable to religious political parties. Nevertheless, I claim, Rawls’s theory does offer some scope for reinterpreting the concepts of reasonableness and public reason in a thinner and less restrictive sense and this may render it more inclusive towards religious partisanship.     

The Relationship,If Any,Between Marriage and Infidelity

SUMMARY

Infidelity has been hypothesized to be caused by any number of factors, including unhappy marriages. The current article explores the myths about infidelity and its treatment. Advice is offered to those treating affairs, and to those interested in successful marriages.     

On the Nature of Philosophy

This paper claims that what philosophy primarily does is interpret our notions, offer ways of understanding these notions that are not scientific in nature but not contrary to science either. The paper draws a distinction between conceptual analysis, a highly constrained enterprise that is supposed to bring to light what was in the concept all along, and the interpretation of notions, a creative enterprise that offers ways of understanding notions that were not already prefigured by the content of these notions—philosophy consists in the latter, not the former. It explains how these interpretations are justified and what the difference is between better and worse interpretations. The remainder of the paper is organized around three headings: philosophy and science, philosophy and language, and philosophy and progress. It claims that in philosophy there is no real progress, but that philosophy does move forward because the notions at issue are endlessly interpretable.