《齐物论》解读——以“一”为主题

《齐物论》是《庄子》内篇之一,基本属于庄子的思想。它以"道"为最高范畴,主题是"一",内含"道通为一""物通为一""知通为一"三个方面。关于"齐物论"的涵义,历来有"齐物"论与齐"物论"之争,但从全篇来看,二者都有论述,物与物论都是齐的对象。可以说,"齐"即是"一",根本方法是"吾丧我",最高境界是"至人"。     

“和”与《齐物论》的思想主旨

《齐物论》是《庄子》中的重要篇目,也是其核心思想。庄子认为世界万物看起来是千差万别的,但归根结底是齐一的,没有什么根本不同。以前解"齐物"多在"通"上着眼,本文则进一步从"和"的角度挖掘其深意,认为"和"是理解"通"而达致"齐(物)"旨趣的重要方式和功夫。"和"是对多样性和差异性的融合、包涵,如孔子有"君子和而不同"之说,故在这一点上"和"与"通"是一致的。本文认为,在《齐物论》中,"和"主要有三义:一为涵纳、融汇;二为调剂、均平;三为休止、超越。因此,"和"不仅是诠解《齐物论》思想旨趣的新的切入点,也具有与现代生态文明相通的独特伦理价值。     

慎到的“齐物论”

"齐物论"是先秦诸子关注的一个普遍论题,慎到等人持有不同于庄子传世的"齐物"思想。《庄子·天下》评述了慎到的"齐物论",为理解慎到的思想提供了新视角。慎到"齐物论"的思想基础是"齐万物以为首",如果以君王为齐物主体,以"法"为齐物标准,以民情为齐物对象,以因循为处世态度,则可将道家的"齐物论"转换成法家的"齐民论"。慎到"齐物论"的思想实质就是法家"齐民治国"的政治理论,为法家治国提供了理论基础和方法论。但由于慎到"齐物论"兼有"法"的主宰性和主体的无我无知等特征,其思想存在"身心分裂""尚法而无法""蔽于法而不知贤"和"有见于后无见于先"等矛盾。     

读庄献疑--《齐物论》"莫若以明"新解

"莫若以明"在<齐物论>中出现两次:第一次从"道恶乎隐而有真伪"一句起,到"故有儒墨之是非,以是其所非而非其所是.欲是其所非而非其所是,则莫若以明."第二次从"物无非彼,物无非是"一句起,到"是亦一无穷,非亦一无穷也.故曰莫若以明."     

从“卮言”论《庄子》“齐物”概念所蕴含的子学精神

《齐物论》的基本旨趣在于,使人领悟"万物齐同"的精神。据庄子,万物皆是道的体现者,因此其存有本身理应被尊重,以至于万物齐同的和平境界。万物先以个别单位呈现于特定事态中。并且每件事物在其存在过程中,常与周遭环境连上关系,互相影响而转化为另一存有者。因此,使此世界总在变化之中。《庄子》一书所提出的"齐物"概念,要使人承认万物理应拥有按照各自的存有方式而存在的生命形式。那么,在《庄子》文本中,如何将"齐物"之论得到其内在逻辑根据呢?换句话说,《庄子》究竟依据何种内在的逻辑形式以确保"齐物""逍遥"等核心概念的证成呢?本论沿着"卮言"的语言特征而论证"齐物"概念的有效性和合理性。由此导出《庄子》"齐物"概念正合乎新科技革命时代所需的子学精神,即多元性生活世界此般结论。     

略述《庄子》“齐物”的四种思路

"齐物"是庄子学说的核心思想。在《庄子》一书中,关于"齐物"的论说共有四种思路:一,内篇的"齐物"思路是,万物本齐,不齐只是世俗之人的"成心"所造成的假相,去除了"成心",则万物本齐的真相便可呈现;二,《骈拇》等篇的"齐物"思路是,万物本不齐,但若能各尽其性,那么在合于自然的意义上,万物齐一;三,《秋水》的"齐物"思路是,打破狭隘视野的囿限便可知,万物的各种属性都只是相对的,与此相应,万物之间的各种差别也是相对的,从这个意义上说,万物齐一;四,《知北游》的"齐物"思路是,万物都由"气"而构成,因此,在构成的材料上,万物齐一。以上四种思路虽都指向"齐物",但各有所重,理据不同,不可混淆。     

实在论与社会建构论之争视域下的拉图尔——论拉图尔的建构主义实在论

对实在概念的传统本体论界定和本质主义的认识论进路,导致了实在论与社会建构论之间的争论陷入了一个怪圈而无法获得解决.拉图尔在改造“实在”概念的基础上,创造性地将建构主义和实在论结合到一起,提出了建构主义实在论.本体论上,物或事实都是被建构的,同时,被建构的物或事实是实在的,而且物或事实的建构性正是其实在性的保证.认识论上,认识论的问题被本体论化,科学所指称的并不是外在的自然,而是从自然到知识的一条转译链.建构主义实在论在一定程度上弱化了实在论和社会建构论之间的争论,成为当前科学哲学的本体论研究中的一种代表性理论.     

《庄子·齐物论》“指”、“马”之喻别裁

本文从考辨《庄子·齐物论》之"指"、"马"之喻所喻为何,对庄子借此以申释其齐"物论"而齐"物"的思想作了抉示。庄子因名家所辩"指"、"马"而为"指"、"马"之喻,但却从根本上抑斥言辩。而"物"与"物论"、"物"之齐或不齐与"物论"的齐或不齐在庄子这里是一体的,对这一体的最精要概括莫过于"物谓之而然"。对于庄子来说,齐"物"的契机在于齐人的"谓之"或齐其"物论"。     

《庄子》内七篇与惠施考论

庄惠之交是了解庄子的一个视角,历来为学者所注意。《庄子》内七篇均与惠施有一定渊源:从《齐物论》《逍遥游》看,惠施于"齐物"有所得,庄子有所取鉴,但惠施所论不醇,"齐物"而不能"逍遥",遂与庄子之学分道扬镳;《人间世》论士人进退存身"形就心和"之道,思想背景与惠施一类纵横策士有关;《养生主》论"无用"之"保身",亦发端于《逍遥游》庄惠辩"无用";《德充符》论"不与物迁、命物之化"之"德",与惠施"弱于德""逐万物而不反"形成鲜明对比;《大宗师》论生死哲学甚精,是庄惠围绕"鼓盆而歌"论生死的延展与深化;《应帝王》走向对政治的完全厌弃,汲汲于政治的惠施是一个主要参照点。但庄子创作七篇非因惠施,惠施亦只是庄子笔下众多"质"中之一员。     

论公孙龙、庄子和憨山德清的“非指”之辩

公孙龙和庄子都讨论过"指非指"的命题,后世高僧也参与论析,使"非指"之辩成为中国哲学史上涉及道家、形名家和佛家的著名公案。然而,三家的讨论并不在同一个层面上:公孙龙侧重于从差异性的角度分析概念,深化了对于概念内涵的思考,但概念使用不严密;庄子在道家境界论的语境下的讨论"非指",从道论的立场出发,主张万物一体,超越了对事物差异性的分别;憨山德清立足于佛教修养论对《庄子》进行解读。德清强调"我见"、"我执"是纷争和是非的根源,以"物论"之齐解释"齐物"之论,将庄子的"非指"之辩落实为非辩之辩,固然揭示了道家之境界,同时也体现了佛教修养论的思想特点。     

易道辩正

易道是易学思想的精髓或内在精神,其最根本的特征是所谓的“一阴一阳之道”。作为易学结构基元的易卦卦象符号,与阴阳观念具有先天性的亲和力,从而使得阴阳观念有了一个可以符号化表征的形式系统。在汉代,阴阳五行与易学成为一个统一的有机整体。两汉的象数理论试图将易道(天道)完全形式化努力的最终结果是“入于礻几祥”,成为一套牵强附会的繁琐哲学。魏晋以后,诸如“时”、“中”一类具有明显的个人独知默会、参悟修证意义的命题,逐渐成为一阴一阳、生生不息的“易道”最为生动的表征。道之真谛,若以易理言之,就是“自强不息”,“与时偕行”。     

"全球伦理"与"文明的冲突"

自美国9.11恐怖袭击事件后,塞缪尔.亨廷顿关于“文明冲突”的理论引起人们高度兴趣。以宗教为核心的文明之间的冲突真的难以化解吗?汉斯.昆的“全球伦理”观点对此提出挑战。本文将浅析一下“全球伦理”,及其化解“文明冲突”的可能性。     

方术迷信的"灵验"揭秘

方术作为中华神秘文化的一个重要的组成部分,是一种既不同于宗教又与宗教有联系的企图借助于“鬼神”等神秘力量来消灾免祸、延年益寿、添财加福的可操作性的东西,如八卦术、算命术、风水术、占梦术、测字术、巫术等。 方术尽管是唯心的不可相信的东西,在历代也遭到了一些人的攻击和批判,然而为何屡不绝迹,有时甚至风靡一时、影响很大,即使在今天仍然有其市场呢?其中一个重要的原因在于一些人认为方术“灵验”。 方术“灵验”的原因是什么?到底是哪些因素     

"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".     

The development of children's understanding of "because" and "so"

Children's (5 years, 8 months to 8 years, 4 months) comprehension of "because" and "so" was assessed on both enactment and sentence completion tasks. The use of a within-subject design permitted performance on each task to be interpreted in terms of performance on the other. The pattern of results provided evidence against a componential model for the acquisition of causal connectives. This model holds that the two meaning components (cause, order) are acquired separately, with the order component being acquired several years later than the causal component. The results also were in accord with predictions derived from a contextual model of children's developing understanding of terms expressing logical relationships. This model posits that the understanding of relational terms is initially context dependent, such that children can understand relational terms when they express familiar relationships, but experience difficulty in forming representations of novel relationships solely on the basis of linguistic input. The lexical components of because and so are understood during the context-dependent stage, and the transition from context-dependent to context-independent understanding does not reflect further lexical development, but rather increasing facility in dealing with decontextualized linguistic input.     

Comparison of two theories of "ratio" and "difference" judgments

This article examines the hypothesis that judges compare stimuli by ratio and subtractive operations when instructed to judge" "ratios" and "differences." Rule and Curtis hold that magnitude estimations are a power function of subjective values, with an exponent between 1.1 and 2.1. Accordingly, the two-operation model tested assumes magnitude estimations of "ratios" are a comparable power function of subjective ratios. In contrast, Birnbaum and Veit theorize that judges compare two stimuli by subraction for both "ratio" and "difference" instructions and that magnitude estimations of "ratios" are approximately an exponential function of subjective differences. Three tests were used to compare the theory of one operation with the two-operation theory for the data of nine experiments. The results strongly favor the theory that observers use the same operation for both instructions.