“一通茶“的秘密

“一通茶“现象 　　从1998年开始首先在北京市场上出现了一种叫做“一通茶“的“保健品“,在大大的“一通茶“三个字旁边是一个穿着红色无领运动衫、梳着油亮整齐的头发、戴着一幅近视镜、抿着红红的薄嘴唇微笑着的中国男人,这个男人显然就是这个被叫做“一通茶“的“发明““发现“或者“发掘“者.……     

“摧”与“催”“寥”与“廖”的区别?

“摧”与“催”、“寥”与“廖”是两组容易混淆的词,它们因字形相近、读音相同或相近,人们在使用时往往会发生差错。先说“摧”与“催”。“摧”有两种读音:一种是“cuī”,含有毁坏、破坏、折断、挫败、讥刺、伤等意思,如摧残、摧折、无坚不摧、摧枯拉朽等;另一种是(“cuò”错),通“莝”,锄草。“催”只有一种读音:“cuī”,它有两种含义:一种是“催促”(叫人赶快行动或做某事),如“催他来信”、“催你回家”等;另一种是“促,     

再谈“法轮功“为什么能“迷魂“

邪教“法轮功“为什么能使一些高级知识分子也变得那么痴迷?对此,作者在&;lt;“法轮功“为什么能“迷魂“&;gt;一文中,从心理学和精神病学角度首次提出“法轮功“特殊的习练方式本身对习练者具有极强的催眠作用.李洪志的一套人们在清醒状态下不难辨别的歪理邪说在催眠状态下变成了习练者心目中的真理,起到毒化思想观念和操纵习练者头脑的作用(详见2001年2月2日&;lt;人民日报&;gt;第6版).近来,人们普遍对少数痴迷者为什么那么“顽固“和“难以转化“感到迷惑.其实,这与“法轮功“特殊的习练方式引发了“顽固者“精神障碍(精神病)有直接关系.……     

文化的“雅”与“俗”

大千世界无奇不有。近读报刊,忽然发现,广告中的“文化”一词愈来愈多。譬如,某“基金会”为“弘扬中华‘××文化’,特举办×制品展销”;某地市新辟一条“小吃街”,其“意”亦在推动“饮食文化”建设;某商场新近落成,也向公众许诺,旨在“传播‘现代消费文化’欢迎惠顾”;如此等等,不一而足。说不准哪一天会有一位奇才,突发奇想,举办一     

从“证伪”到“去伪”

《北京晨报》2006年12月4日报道,“一些学者日前正在联名要求废除‘伪科学’一词。”11月15日,中国科学院自然科学史所研究员宋正海给几百名学者发信——《不要让“伪科学”一词成为灭亡传统文化的借口》,要求废除“伪科学”提法。宋正海在信中向有关部门提出,“恳请将‘伪科学’一词剔除出科普法。”某些人害怕听到“伪科学”一词,简直容不得“伪科学”一词,必欲去之而后快。这场“去‘伪     

“多”“一”“变”“常”及其他——有关句式选择的几个问题

巳故修辞学家张弓先生有这样的两句诗:“多端选一开生面,变里含常喜适机”(见《修辞学习》创刊号)。这是对修辞原则的概括,自然也适用于作为修辞手段的一种的句式的选择。从句式的选择来看,的确时时涉及到“多”与“一”,“变”与“常”,“开生面”与“喜适机”的问题。可以说,句式选择的成功,是正确处理这些关系的结果。因此,它们是句式选择的几个原则问题,我们应当充分注意,认真对待。所谓“多”与“一”,就是“多端选一”的问题。汉语里有各种各样的句式,它们各有各的表达功能,这就是“多端”。使用者根据表达的需要,从中选用一种句式,这     

悖论内含什么“矛盾”?——“逻辑”、“辩证”还是“中介”矛盾

“悖论”是什么?它就是挑战(或违背)常识的“大”理。所谓“挑战”,就有“矛盾”存在。所谓“矛盾”,当然是指“逻辑矛盾”:某一属性既属于同时又不属于同一对象。 这个简朴的“悖论”定义,比日常理解(和普遍辞典)只多添一个“大”字。无论是我这个定义,还是历来的绝大多数的权威定义,都认定“矛盾”就是“逻辑矛盾”,所以不时都可以省略“逻辑”一词,只不过,大家都认为,悖论不是普通的矛盾,而是一种“特殊”的矛盾。我要补充的是,     

“个人中心”与“私的毛病”

记得一位老先生在一本旧著中很严肃地说过,“私的毛病”在中国实在比“愚”和“病”更普遍得多,什么东西一说是“公家”的,差不多就是说可以占一点便宜的,只讲“权利”而无“义务”。其根源,乃在于旧中国的长期私有制社会人伦关系,是以“己”为中心而推广开去的。尽管这位老     

“一心二门”与“一本多级”

一在中国传统哲学如何实现现代转型这一重要问题上,现代新儒家提出了“内圣开出新外王”的理论格局,这一格局是基于佛教“一心二门”的思维方式。“一心二门”的“一心”源于佛教的一切众生皆有“自性清净心”和“万法唯识”的思想,     

论蔡元培“仁”“知”“勇”之君子人格

如果从孔子所倡导的君子“三达德”即“仁”“知”“勇”角度来看蔡元培的伟大人格,那么就可以说,蔡元培就是一位“立人”“达人”之仁者,一位高瞻远瞩之知者,一位无所畏惧之勇者.如果说教师的人格风范是学生追慕的目标,那么大学校长的人格风范就是全校师生追慕的目标,甚至是整个社会大众追慕的目标.因此,从一定意义上可以说,蔡元培的君子人格就是北京大学精神的象征,也是整个中国大学精神的象征.     

"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.