《管子》的生态哲学思想

本文论述了《管子》的生态哲学,认为:《管子》把天地人看作是一个以“道”根据和调节机制的和谐平衡的有机整体系统,认为天地生态系统遵循着基本的生态法则,阐述了“人与天调”、“天人相因”的内在统一的生态存在论和实践观。《管子》以“道为物要”的生态价值观为基础,把自然现象道德化,把人类的道德推广到自然万物,提出“德润万物”生态伦理命题。《管子》从人与自然内在统一的观点,揭示了自然现象的属性与人的能力品质的内在一致性。《管子》主张遵循天人感应之“时德”的农业生态伦理与政治生态伦理。《管子》把生态伦理法律化、行政伦理化。     

论庄子“万物一齐”的生态审美观

当先秦诸子大都以人的理解为中心去看待人与自然万物的存在方式,认为万物只是相对于人来说才具有存在的价值和意义时,庄子站在古典存在论的立场上提出了含有生态审美智慧的“万物一齐”观,即“休乎天钧”的生态和谐理念、“为是不用而寓诸庸”的生态价值观念、“万物与我为一”的生态共生气象。其“万物一齐”的生态审美观所蕴涵的万物平等共生、放弃自我中心、无用之用等观念有助于当代的生态伦理和生态实践建设。     

儒家伦理人文主义生态之维及其现代回应

儒家人文主义生态伦理思想,包括“人与天地万物为一体”的精神旨归、“民,吾同胞也;物,吾与也”的文化关怀以及“取物限量,取物以时”的道德规范。以科学的理性精神实现对儒家生态伦理的现代回应,无疑对建构人与自然和谐共生的现代生态伦理有重要的启迪价值。     

“張横渠的哲學”一文讀後感

我閱讀了張岱年先生所著:“張横渠的哲学”一文后,我感到把張横渠推崇為:“北宋時代最偉大的唯物論者”“建立了卓越的唯物論哲学体系”这個論點是值得研究的。我提出幾點不同的認識如下: 一倫理學說張岱年先生說:“在倫理学方面張橫渠有顯明的進步性,他鼓吹封建時代所可能有的平等博愛思想,他借用墨子兼爱作道德的基本準則”,张先生說西铭中:“……民吾同胞,物吾与也。大君者吾父母宗子,其大臣宗子之家相也……”这一段話的含義是:“横渠这种理论,把一切人看作兄弟,自君主以至最窮苦的人都是天地之子,在这個意義上都是平等。”“在当時歷史條件下还是有進步意義的。”     

论管仲学派生态伦理思想的层次结构

管仲学派把天、地、人看作是一个以"道"为根据和调节机制的有机系统,认为天地人遵循着共同的基本生存法则,由此阐述了以"人与天调"、"天人相因"为基础的生态存在论。《管子》一书以"道为物要"的价值观为总依据,把自然现象道德化,根据人类道德与自然万物的内在依存关系,提出"德润万物"的生态伦理命题;揭示了自然现象的属性与人的能力品质的一致性,主张入世行为要遵循以"人与天调"、"德润万物"、"时之处事"为中心的伦理原则,并提出了取用有度的生态伦理规范,即合理利用,开发有度;依时禁放,顺天应人;宽猛并济,令行禁止;多管齐下,综合治理。管仲学派的生态伦理思想与其政治思想是紧密结合的,直接服务于治国安邦、发展经济和满足民众需求,它开创了中国生态伦理思想史的先河。     

"控制自然"观念的历史演进及其伦理意蕴--略论威廉·莱斯的科技-生态伦理价值观

“控制自然”的观念及其社会效应是当代科技伦理和生态伦理的核心论题。莱斯在《自然的控制》一书中,不仅考察了“控制自然”观念的历史演进过程,而且还揭示了“控制自然”观念的本质及其同“控制人”之间的内在关联,并提出了通过社会变革和重新阐释“控制自然”的观念,使之摆脱意识形态的束缚,是实现“自然的解放”的关键。本文最后评述了莱斯对“控制自然”观念的考察中所蕴涵的科技伦理和生态伦理思想。     

儒家的生态观与审美观

儒家的“仁学”思想确立了人在整个生态系统中的核心地位,并通过血缘、泛血缘、拟血缘的方式构筑了宗族、国家、万物层层扩展的生态等级秩序,设计出一套“亲亲而仁民,仁民而爱物”的“贵人贱物”、“爱有差等”的生态价值体系。从积极的方面来说,这套价值系统有着实用性、灵活性的特点;从消极的方面来讲,这套价值系统又有可能导致功利主义和机会主义的偏颇。与这种生态观念相对应,儒家的审美观念也以“仁学”为核心,形成了一种以“善”统“美”的伦理本位立场,并通过“君子比德”的方式赋予自然界的审美对象以社会价值,通过“微言大义”的方式赋予艺术作品中的自然情感以伦理价值。从积极的方面来说,这套价值系统有着防止形式主义、唯美主义的意义;从消极的方面来讲,这套价值系统又有可能导致狭隘的功利主义。长期以来,为了发扬上述生态观与自然观的优点而克服其缺点,儒家学者一般都依靠“中庸之道”的原则来平衡人与自然、理智与情感之间的辩证关系,并从两个方面共同构筑着“天人合一”的宇宙人生哲学。     

试论儒家生态思想及实践

儒家生态思想大体上可以从生态存在论、生态价值论两方面论述:(1)儒家生态存在论是一种有机生成论,它将天地创生万物的过程视作创生生命的过程。儒家还从天地创生万物高度考察天人关系,强调人应承继天地"生生之德",发挥自身"赞天地之化育"的功用;(2)儒家生态价值论强调人的主体性价值,并从天人关系高度阐释人"成己成物""赞天地之化育"的价值。儒家重视德性修养在生态建设中的作用和地位,主张通过德性修养,达到"天地万物一体之仁"的境界。儒家主张"等差之爱",即对人与万物施以不同的关爱,其中亦体现了对于人与自然万物不同价值的认识。儒家生态环保实践大体上包括生态德性修养实践与社会政治层面的生态治理实践。(1)儒家重视生态德性修养实践,阐述了"至诚→尽其性→尽人之性→尽物之性→赞天地之化育"的德性修养路径;(2)生态治理实践方面,儒家强调以礼义治理天下,其祭祀礼仪中包含有祭祀山川动植物之礼,与农业生产直接相关的籍田礼、蚕桑礼等等;此外,儒家还从自然资源可持续利用出发,制定了一系列合理利用自然资源的禁令。     

老子养生思想新解

一、老子养生思想的宇宙观基础作为道家的创始人和道教的祖师 ,老子通过他的《道德经》提供了一种以“道”为核心的道家思想体系。老子认为 ,“道”是天地万物的本原 ,世界上的一切事物都是由“道”产生的 ,并且是按照“道”的规律运动变化的。那么什么是“道”呢 ?老子说 :道可道 ,非常道 ;名可名 ,非常名。无名天地之始 ,有名万物之母。 (《道德经一章》)有物混成 ,先天地生。寂兮寥兮 ,独立而不改 ,周行而不殆 ,可以为天下母。吾不知其名字之曰道 ,吾强为之名曰大。 (《道德经二十五章》)在老子看来 ,真正的“道”是不可以言说的 ,它在天…     

论儒家思想中的"人"与"自然"之关系:兼论其21世纪之启示

本文探讨儒家思想传统中“人”与“自然”之关系。本文先从比较文化史视野,析论中国思维方式之特质在于“联系性思维方式”。本文指出,儒家思想传统以“联系性思维方式”为基础,强调“人”与“自然”之间是一种相即相融并互相渗透的关系。“自然”是“人”的创生者,“人”也是“自然”的参与者。儒家思想家主张“人”与“自然”之间具有连续性与一体性之关系。这两种关系之所以可能,其基础正在于人与宇宙万物都以生生不已的仁德为其本性。“仁”既内在于每个人的心性之中,又超越于每个个体之上,成为宇宙万物之共同质素。而儒家思想中“人”与“自然”之连续性与一体观的建立与发展,正是以人“心”之自觉为其基础。     

"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".     

"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.     

"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.     

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.