论先秦儒家和道家的公平观念

公平与正义问题由来已久,每一个时代都有其对公平与正义的诉求,而每一个时代的思想家都有他们关于这个问题的不同方式的表达。这些诉求和表达是我们关于公平正义的思想源头,又是我们处理当今社会问题的思想基础。本文着力于先秦儒道两家对这方面问题的思考。     

柏拉图与亚里士多德正义观之辨析

正义之维在社会中的凸显,并非始于现代,古希腊著名的思想家柏拉图和亚里士多德都创立了各具特色的正义理论.他们的正义思想不仅迥异纷呈,而且也具共同性及内在关联性.     

从承认理论到多元正义构想——霍耐特哲学思想发展的基本轨迹

承认理论是霍氏政治哲学、道德哲学的思想核心,多元正义构想则是霍氏承认理论的进一步拓展.因而,从承认理论到多元正义构想是霍氏哲学思想发展基本轨迹.如果说,霍氏试图将承认理论从交往理论进一步发展为道德一元论,使之处于康德传统的道德理论与社群主义之间;那么,其多元正义构想及政治伦理学则试图在康德道德哲学、后现代伦理学与哈贝马斯话话伦理学之间进行调和.总起来说,霍氏承认理论已经构成了一个比较完整的框架,但多元正义构想及政治伦理学则只是处于初创阶段,还有待于进一步阐发和完善.     

马克思著述知多少?--从"书志学"方面进行的清理、考证与统计

对于像马克思这样从少年时代便开始写作、毕生最善于用文字表述其对世界的理解和看法的思想家,其留下的文本及其相关文献是我们诠释其思想虽非唯一但的确是非常重要的依凭[2];而从总体上对其著述进行比较清楚的梳理和尽可能准确的统计,将有助于从宏观上把握思想家写作的特点、文体的类型、文本的曲折历程和思想被接受的种种复杂情形,是文本研究中一项必不可少的工作.     

别一种“正义论”——伊万·伊里因的正义思想研究

与西方哲学家由于要限制社会中的贫富差距、改善处境较差的社会成员的生存状况而讨论正义问题的初衷不同,俄罗斯思想家却是鉴于平均主义民族心理在俄罗斯的根深蒂固和平均主义社会思想在俄罗斯的广泛传播而讨论正义问题的,因此,俄罗斯思想家的正义观总是透露着对人的个性和独特性的凸显与强调。作为20世纪俄罗斯著名的政治哲学家,伊万·伊里因(1883-1954)对正义思想的表达鲜明地体现了俄罗斯正义思想这一独特性。伊里因的正义观以其精神哲学为基础,着重于强调人的独特性,提出作为差别化艺术的正义思想,由此表达出一种批判平均主义、强调要尊重人的个性和独特性的社会建设方向。相较于西方的正义理论,伊里因的正义观不失为讨论正义问题的另一个面相,同时,对于我们远离平均主义的误区、建设社会主义和谐社会也有一定的针对性和启发性。     

"风俗美"阐释——以柏拉图和荀子为例的两种美学传统比较

柏拉图与荀子都提出风俗美.柏拉图的城邦风俗之美是建立在正义原则下的治国之美,其核心在正义.而正义又蕴含着一种理性本质,所以城邦风俗之美被规定为客观事物的理性属性,是一种理性化的美.     

普遍的正义如何可能——柏拉图正义论及发微

柏拉图试图解决正义是什么、正义如何可能和正义是何种价值这样一些根本问题 ,其提问题的方式、解决路径都是柏拉图式的。有借鉴意义的是正义植根于心灵深处的土壤以及社会供给正义的途径。实现正义是一个艰难且复杂的社会历史过程 ,推进民主进程、使正义理念扎根于民众的日常生活深处 ,相对正义的社会才会被建立起来 ,基于此种理念之上的用以保证、体现和实现正义的制度才会被设计出来。     

"群己之辩"与近代中国的价值观变革

在中国,严格意义上的"群己之辩"只是近代的产物.由于试图在"天理"的框架内安放个人或个性,前近代思想家至多只是赋予"己"以有限的独立性.以龚自珍为发端的价值观变革以"天"与"人"的分离为前提,从张扬以往被压抑的个人和个性开始;现代化进程带来的社会关系重组导致了新的群体意识的产生.围绕着社会、政治伦理展开的价值观争论,曾经出现过种种不同的观点.尽管有过个性解放的高潮,但近代思想家大多更倾向于群己平衡、甚至群己和谐的理想.只是并没有发现有效地实现这一理想的道路,在"群己之辩"方面的价值观变革并未终结.     

"谦"的德性传统及其当代命运

作为中国传统德性之一的"谦"德,一般指谦逊、谦卑和谦虚.中国古代思想家不仅阐述了"谦"的含义和根据,而且还论证了"谦"的价值.一般认为,"谦"的价值在于其有益于修德、为学、待人和持业.中国古代思想家特别重视"谦"德,以至于出现了某种过谦的倾向.西方亦有"谦"的传统,不过与中国古代的"谦"德相比,西方的"谦"德不易走向极端化.当代中国社会虽然正在向现代性社会转型,但"谦"德仍然有其价值.我们应当在接续传统精华的同时,吸取西方"谦"德的有益成分,以重塑适应当代中国社会的"谦"德.     

佩弗的马克思主义"道德社会论"批判

建立一个以人为本的和谐社会也就是建立一个能够保证社会经济公平正义的社会。社会正义是马克思主义者理所当然应当关心的问题,但人们在讨论社会正义问题时多直接借用西方政治哲学和道德哲学的有关思想,特别是罗尔斯的《正义论》。那么,我们能否直接从马克思的经典著作中找到今     

"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.