黄老学派“类法治”思想探析

黄老思想是战国时期兴起的一个哲学政治思想,一方面其强调"道生法",主张法律的道德基础、强调法律的权威与作用;另一方面主张"循法而治",并提出君主"无为而治",弱化统治者的主观能动性,防止统治者对法律的侵害。相对于中国古代的法家、儒家等其它学派法律思想,其法律思想更接近于西方的法治思想,对我国今天的法治建设有一定的现实借鉴意义。     

《治国与教民:先秦诸子的争鸣与共识》

治国、治天下是中国古代哲学家所关注的重要问题,先秦诸子为如何治理国家和天下以获得稳定的社会秩序提供了各种模式,如德治、礼治、法治、无为之治等。而治国、治天下又与教民有着直接的联系,与各种治理方式相适应,有诗教、礼教、乐教、法教、不言之教等教化方式。     

说"人治"

人治是古代特别是儒家的政治思想主张,其基本思想旨趣是对于贤人治政的伦理诉求.人治并不排斥法治.将人治与法治对立起来的是法家,尤其是表现于战国中、后期慎到、韩非的倡导重势和反对尊贤.人治作为一种政治现象和政治思想学说在人类社会发展的一定历史时期具有普遍性,对其历史作用应作具体分析.批判其历史的、阶级的局限性,吸取和借鉴其合理因素,是政治学和伦理学研究的一个不宜忽视的任务.     

管仲和亚里士多德法治思想异同论

管仲和亚里士多德分别在古代中国和希腊大致同时提出了法治理论,旗帜鲜明地提倡法治反对人治。然而,由于对于法律与法治的不同理解,管仲的法治是君主用法律维护其统治的“以法治国”,亚里士多德的法治则是用良法规范社会的“依法治国”。两者的“法治”内涵虽然不同,但法治思想中的“法律至上”对我国的法治建设有所启示。     

德治与法治:何以协同?谁更优先?

考察历史可以发现,古代西方走的是法治的道路,而当代西方却开启了复兴德性伦理的运动;古代中国走的是德治的道路,而当代中国却把法治确定为治国理政的基本方略。中西历史治理之道的反向运动表明,必须坚持德治与法治协同共治。考量现实可以发现,治国理政面临着道德滑坡与违法乱纪的双重困扰,坚持依法治国与以德治国相结合、德治与法治相协同,意义更加突出、作用更加重大。需要强调的是,在德治与法治的结合与协同中,德治具有价值优先性。     

古文"上"字的哲学蕴含——以《老子》文本为例

对语词的考察是哲学研究的基本任务之一,对中国早期哲学的研究,语词考察的重要性尤为显著.<老子>哲学中方位名词"上",以及以"上"所组词语的运用,表达了老子哲学深刻的形上意蕴,彰显出<老子>哲学不同于古代西方哲学的运思方法和独特的学术魅力.     

古代印论中“满白文”考释

"满白文"是中国古代印论中经常使用的名词,现如今谈论篆刻时也经常使用,但该名词在印论中的发展过程并无人关注。"满白文"在不同印学论著中的含义和划分有一些区别,通过对其进行考察,可以认识到这一名词在印论中经历了从无到有,并且认识不断加深的过程。这一过程体现了古代篆刻理论家的智慧和辩证的思想。     

贺麟的法治观及其当代启示

贺麟作为现代新儒学八大家之一,其哲学思想历来为学界所重视,而对其法哲学思想则鲜有论及。事实上,贺麟的法哲学思想也是颇为精湛的。他的法治观是他的法哲学思想的重要部分。贺麟对法治何以存在、什么是真正的法治、法治的类型、诸种法治类型演进的规律等进行了深刻的阐述,并对认为"儒家重德治反对法治"的错误观念进行了批判,还对其所处时代的法治建设提出了自己的期望。这些思想对当今我国的法治建设具有诸多借鉴价值。     

隆礼重法与秦汉的国家治理初探

礼治与法治是古代中国常被人对比的两种治国方法,然而追溯其源,礼治与法治在最初并不是截然对立的,造成后世以变法为变礼为法的关键,应该是刑律的公布与大量岀现。后人说商鞅"改法为律",其主要原因当是商鞅将刑罚转换为军律,或者说以军律统属赏罚。商鞅变法后,秦国逐渐强大,荀子入秦参观,称赞秦国风俗几乎"治之至",但认为因无儒,故不可王天下。然而当时人多认为儒术无助于治国。这是因为以军律统治国家,使老百姓被军队化,礼义廉耻围绕农战而展开,传统意义上的仁义道德没有了可以实行的基础。汉承秦制,儒生批评秦法的残暴,有些夸大,但后来儒术成为了统治思想,阳儒阴法成为了后世主流的统治法。     

何怀宏"底线伦理"思想刍议

何怀宏以一种普遍主义的底线伦理学的视角,对中国传统的心性良知理论进行了高蹈道德与基本伦理的区分与剥离。这一学术努力不仅让我们从道德伦理角度看到中国古代传统思想的资源和局限,更让我们看到了在一个现代法治社会中建立和维护"底线伦理"的有效机制的重要性。而其后何怀宏以其持续的伸展到社会正义和精神信仰的学术努力,为他的"底线伦理"理论建构了一个基本完整的思想体系,在这一富于思想意义的架构中,"社会正义"是现代个人伦理的制度保障,而"个体信仰"则成为支持和提升底线伦理的一种力量。     

"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.