上博简《曹沫之阵》研究

上博简《曹沫之阵》与《左传》、《国语》中的原始材料一样,应该是战国时期流传到楚地的“教材类短文”。《曹沫之阵》强调“是故夫陈(阵)者,为三教之末”,与儒家重视教化在治国中作用相契合。结合战国时期儒学南传,对《曹沫之阵》可能为儒家文献的认识更加清晰,从中可以管窥早期儒学对楚政治、文化的影响。     

《周易》古经之"孚"新解

对于《周易》古经中的"孚"字,很多学者将其解为"信",然这是一种后起的观念。因此,求得"孚"字之原初意,寻找将"孚"训为"信"的根据,对更好地了解"孚"之意蕴,以及认识《周易》古经及其产生的观念有重要的意义。     

李贽“文王之卦”解

李贽《九正易因》着力于阐发文王、孔子"神圣心事",其"文王之卦"说继承发展了传统"三陈九卦"说,以《明夷》、《困》等十六卦为具体内容,深入阐发文王忧患之事、处困之道、尚贤养贤之道、风化天下等内容。"文王之卦"是李贽《易》学思想的核心内容,体现了《九正易因》独特的《易》学史价值。     

先秦时期战功名称问题——上博简《曹沫之陈》的一个启示

上博简《曹沫之陈》简文“一人又（有）多,四人皆赏”,是简帛材料上关于“伍”之间相保的明确记载,也是“战功曰多”的又一条注解。先秦时期以“多”作为战功的代称,当与自古以来战争的杀伐性质有关。而以“多”释战功,可能源自远古狩猎后的论功行赏之俗。“战功曰多”之事,秦汉以降逐渐退出人们的视野,这从一个角度让人们看到了上古时代人们的战争观念的变化。     

孟子知《易》说综论

《孟子》七篇未尝有一语提及《易》,亦未见有对《周易》经传之引用,故后儒对于孟子是否知《易》看法各异。赵岐认为孟子"通五经",程颐言"知《易》者莫如孟子",朱熹却持相反意见。程朱二说可视为汉唐经学向两宋理学转型时理学家尊崇"四书"的不同表述,与赵岐在五经独尊的学术背景下言孟子"通五经"实有异曲同工之妙——其语境截然不同,但其出发点皆为推重孟子其人其书。明末黄道周以其象数《易》学思维阐释《孟子》与《易》之关系,而刘宗周则从其心性学视阈论述之,为认识此问题提供了新思路。清儒焦循认为"孟子深于《易》",其《孟子正义》在对《孟子》语句、篇章之意蕴及赵岐传意之解读中多处以《易》解《孟》,但因其对宋明理学家解《孟》之成果一概不收,故也失去了对"《孟子》知《易》"这一学术问题进行全面梳理的可能。围绕《孟子》知《易》展开的各种讨论其实正是各个时代思潮与学者治学个性的综合体现。     

论《中庸》之"中"的三位一体性

三位一体性是中国传统哲学概念的明显特征，也是其高明之处，本文以《中庸》之“中”为个案，具体分析了三位一体性的涵义，子思所作《中庸》篇讲“中”是天下之大本，“中”之所以能够成为天下之大本，在于《中庸》之“中”不是一个意义单一的概念，而是一个即本体即认识即境界的三位一体的命题，即“中”既有本体论意义，又有认识意义，同时还具有修养论意义，本体论意义是基础性，本源性的，认识论意义是过渡性，中介性的，修养论意义则是归宿，终点，是前两者在更高环节上的统一。     

引史证经:杨万里的易学历史哲学北大核心CSSCISSCI

南宋杨万里的易学"引史"以"证经",辟宋代易学发展之新路,于其中颇有历史哲学之精神。他认为《易》与"史"有着密切的关系:《易》确立起大中至正的形上之道,"史"则将此形上之道贯彻、落到实处;人们以"史"为鉴,就能更好地按《易》道所确立的精神行动。在此基础上,他提出"《易》形天下无形之理、穷天下无穷之事"的观点,强调人们的历史认识具有客观的性质;"易道之用存乎变",历史的变化是必然的过程;"易道之体存乎常",历史的发展具有其自身的法则、规律;"易道之行存乎人",人在历史发展中居于主体的地位,从而构成其独具特色的易学历史哲学理论体系。     

论黄帝垂衣裳是中国服装设计之滥觞

"黄帝垂衣裳而天下治,盖取诸《乾》《坤》",是中国服饰文化史上的一个著名命题。黄帝尚"乾坤"之象创制了在中国社会流传数千年的上衣下裳,结束了华夏先民着衣的自在自为的无序状态,使华夏先民的着衣进入了规范有序的时期,从而实现了天下治,史称"黄帝垂衣裳而天下治盖取之乾坤"。黄帝垂衣裳是中国服装设计之滥觞。     

论《中医药法》的不足及其矫正——扶持保护为重的立法政策之批评

为全面认识《中医药法》,助其有效实施,通过逻辑推理法、价值分析法和类比论证法,剖析了《中医药法》立法之实然状态,并从宏观和微观两个视角予以深刻反思,进而论证了《中医药法》未来实施时的矫正策略。我国《中医药法》过多强调对于中医药事业之扶持,扶持之方法多为降低门槛、放松管制,而对于"监管"和"规范"的关注明显不足,这需要反思。在《中医药法》之实施阶段,我国应着重强调"监管"和"规范",从前、中、后端进行全面、动态、严格和持续的监管,以实现整体的平衡。     

《师·彖》“以此毒天下而民从之”解

正对《周易·师·彖》"以此毒天下而民从之"的解释,历来众说纷纭。此句之关键在一"毒"字。王弼注云:"毒犹役也。"孔颖达疏曰:"‘以此毒天下而民从之,占又何咎矣’者,毒犹役也,若用此诸德使役天下之众,人必从之以得其吉,又何无功而咎责乎?"1朱熹曰:"毒,害也。师旅之兴,不无害于天下,然以其有是才德,是以民悦而从之也。"2高亨先生更是博引清代训诂学家的说法,释之曰:《彖传》:"以此毒天下,而民从之。"王引之曰:"《广雅》:‘毒,安也。’毒天下者,安天下也。《孟子·梁惠王》篇:‘……文王一怒而安天下之民。’是其义。……《老子》曰:‘亭之毒之。’亦谓平之安之也。"俞樾曰:"《尚书·微子》篇:‘天毒降灾,荒殷邦。’《史记·宋世家》毒作笃。     

"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.     

"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".     

“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。     

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.     

"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…     

"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.