如何理解"德得相通"

道德与利益的关系问题可折射出整个社会道德的基础与取向,必须对之予以正确阐释。“德得相通”应该理解成“德”与“道之得”、“心之得”意义上的相通,不应该似是而非的理解成“德”主要与“利之得”意义上相通,更不能把如此理解的“德得相通”视为中国传统道德的基本精神与价值取向。中国传统道德的基本精神与价值取向,应该是以提升自我德性和实现理想人格为主旨,强调克己尚义的道德价值论。     

中国语境中的"敬畏感"

在中国语境下,敬畏感是指为了实现主体的价值追求而自律、自省的一种道德情感,它是人的本质的具体化。敬畏往往和一定的对象相关联,依据对象的不同它具体展开为对自然、他人和自我之敬畏三个维度,自我之敬是敬畏的现代形式。     

论儒家的祭祀文化及其生态意义

儒家文化是自然祛魅之前的文化,它对于自然保留着神性或神意的看法,承认自然之"魅"。其所谓自然之神意或魅是自然的知其然而不知其所以然的神妙莫测的运行机制和力量。儒家文化通过祭祀表达对于自然的敬畏和报答,这叫做"报本反始"和"仁至义尽"。祭祀之礼的生态意义在于它把人从属于自然,从属于天道,使人和天地万物联系在一起,促使人们对于自然保持敬畏的情感。这是一种在宗教掩盖之下的生态循环观念,是天人合一的一种表现。     

走出"伪君子"与"真小人"的怪圈

中国古代儒家崇尚人的德性,本想以德性约束强权;但儒家与君主专制的结合与相互利用,在扩张了德性之作用的同时,也导致了虚伪的流行。道家对虚伪道德做了深刻的揭露和讽刺,主张回归本真。但具有真诚之德性的,正是儒家的真君子,而非道家的“真人”。在中国历史上,虚伪与赤裸裸的恶、伪君子与真小人相生相伴,形成一个个怪圈。要走出这一怪圈,当从确立真诚之德性始。而要确立真诚之德性,必须回归于德性自律,并以制度伦理与德性伦理形成互补。     

"政"、"刑"在德性养成中的作用——孔子与亚里士多德德性养成论之比较

孔子认为政与刑不能在德性养成中起积极作用。他认为,政制禁令和刑罚惩治的威慑,虽可令人不违反法律,行为合乎规范,却正好成为德性内化的障碍。亚里士多德对于德性养成的见解与之恰成对照,他认为德性的养成要依赖习惯和训练,同时也离不开法律的教化与惩罚的威胁。两种不同的见解促使人们思考政治与刑律对于德性养成的作用。     

道德与自然:"形上之道"与"形而上学"的本质区别

在中国传统“形上之道”与西方“Metaphysics（形而上学）”两者都是对超经验的形上事物的研究,但是也存在着根本的不可通约的区别：“形而上学”是着眼于从认识论求“真”的角度来研究的关于自然本体论的“知识”,即“自然形而上学”;而中国的“形上之道”更多地表现为求“善”的内心体验式的对道德境界的追求和精神寄托,即“道德形而上学”。产生区别的内在原因是传统西方以“主客两分”为特征的理性传统与传统中国以“天人合一”为特征的德性传统的不同。     

论科学之"善"

科学之“善”最深层次的内涵乃是现代科学在本性上所具有的“优越”,而科学的自成目的使一种纯粹的科学活动成为可能,这是科学因其自身而固有的善。科学之“福利”与科学之“德性”(智慧),是在“对人有用”或“令人愉悦”的意义上而成为“善”的。在科学之“善”的概念内涵中有异常明显的两难。只有当我们真实地注意到那在科学的实际进展中愈来愈令人不安同时又是不可回避之物之时,科学才可能是优越的、自由的(自成目的)、有用的、令人愉悦的。     

当代生态危机的认识论根源及出路

对自然的数学化必然导致人类对自然的对象化思维,从而把自然当作可以加以征服和驾驭的对象物;近代以来科学技术的成功运用更是助长了人类对自然的狂妄,误认为以人类有限的智慧能认识自然的无限奥秘。这是造成当代全球性生态危机的认识论根源。因此,为了走出当代生态危机,人类必须深刻认识到自己认识的有限性,找回“有学识的无知”,从而对无限的终极实在保持应有的敬畏之感。     

孟子“不虑而知”新解与良知的实现——基于德性认识论的视角

在孟子“不虑而知者,其良知也”一说中,良知一般被视为主体道德意识或道德实践等层面的内在规定,所以通常以道德德性加以阐释,以致忽略了可能潜含的理智德性内涵。转换考察进路来看,与饱含神秘色彩的“生而知之”不同,“不虑而知”以遮诠的形式寓意了良知的认知特性,以及某种消极实现方式。在德性认识论的启发下,作为一种好的、可靠的认知结果或认知状态,良知不仅蕴含了伦理意义下主体德性品质的良善,也意味着一般意义上“心”之功能的良好。而良知所彰显的此种认知状态的达成,离不开主体相关理智德性的参与和发挥,“感”和“直觉”即为良知的两种可能实现方式。     

“知”“德”之辨——苏格拉底与王阳明比较研究

文章采用中西比较研究的方法 ,对于苏格拉底和王阳明伦理学的基本命题———“德性即知识”与“致良知” ,从德性的根据、德性认识的方法、德性的实现三个方面 ,围绕着“知”与“德”这一核心问题 ,进行了分析阐述和比较研究 ,并透过这一个案试图揭示中西两种伦理学传统的重大差异。     

"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.