开拓唯物史观研究的新境界——为纪念恩师叶汝贤先生而作

叶汝贤先生是我国当代马克思主义哲学家,本文就他在马克思主义哲学史研究、马克思主义哲学基础理论研究、唯物史观的发展趋势和创新问题研究、马克思主义哲学与中国现代化研究等方面的学术思想作挂一漏万的心路展示,以凸现叶汝贤先生几十年来在精心致力于马克思主义哲学研究中所张扬的"解放思想、实事求是"的理论精神和"爱吾师更爱真理"的学术风范.     

Breaking In

No abstract available for this article.     

Breaking Through Barriers

This article presents wilderness therapy for sexual assault survivors. A form of treatment that combines counseling wiht rigorous outdoor activities, it creates situations that relate metaphorically to the original assault. Women engage in activities designed to promote team building, trust, self-esttem, confidence, intimacy and personal growth. They are then faced with physically challenging situations that evoke the feelings of helplessness were experienced during the assault, only this time they are provided with the chance to conquer them, by climbing to the mountaintop, hiking the hill, or simply knowing and asserting their physical limits. This article substantiates wilderness therapeutic programming by looking at its appropriateness for sexual assault behaviors.     

Breaking the Law of Desire

This paper offers one formal reason why it may often be inappropriate to hold, of two conflicting desires, that the first must be weaker than, stronger than, or of the same strength as the second. The explanation of this fact does not rely on vagueness or epistemological problems in determining the strengths of desires. Nor does it make use of the problematic notion of incommensurability. Rather, the suggestion is that the motivational capacities of many desires might best be characterized by two values, neither of which should be interpreted as strength.     

Breaking Out of the Circle

What’s wrong with begging the question? Some philosophers believe that question-begging arguments are inevitably fallacious and that their fallaciousness stems from a shared “formal” deficiency. In contrast, some philosophers, like Robinson (Analysis 31:113–117, 1971) deny that begging the question is fallacious at all. And others characterize begging the question as an “informal” fallacy of reasoning that can only be understood with the aid of epistemic (as opposed to syntactic and semantic) notions. Sorensen (Analysis 56:51–55, 1996) joins this last camp by offering a powerful argument against both Robinson’s skepticism and fully formal approaches to the phenomenon. According to Sorensen’s view, question-begging is fallacious because it compromises the rationality of the question-beggar’s position. Though his argument forces Robinson into a peculiar dialectical position, it does little to elucidate the reasons why Robinson’s position is unstable and it fails to embody Sorensen’s own conception of rationally persuasive argumentation. I utilize this conception to show how Robinson is left with no easily identifiable grounds on which to deny the fallaciousness of begging the question. By advancing the dialectic between Sorensen and Robinson, I aim to show that our argumentative practices must take the perspectives of others seriously, whether or not those perspectives are rational.     

Ground grounded

Philosophical Studies - Most facts of grounding involve nonfundamental concepts, and thus must themselves be grounded. But how? The leading approaches—due to Bennett, deRosset, and...     

打破封闭 迅猛发展

我是第一次来五台山,感触特别深,第一是省、市领导的人文素质特别高,对整个五台山的研究工作支持很大,尽管我第一次来五台山,但我与五台山结缘可能有十多年了,事实上,我在读博士的时候就开始写关于五台山的文章,并在《五台山研究》上发表。因此说结缘较早。佛家常说,三十年看山是山,看水是水,再过三十年看山不是山,看水不是水。三十年后又是看山是山,看水是水,这是一个认识不断深化的过程。五台山既有很壮丽的自然景观,也有历史悠久的人文景观,是个历史与自然的二重体,这就是向外对话的一个很好的条件。自然景观在于保护和利用,而人文景观在于重建     

Breaking the Rules When Others Do

People often speak as if the behaviour of others is relevant to the question of whether they are justified in violating a rule. This paper explores three lines of argument which might be used to justify rule violation on grounds appealing to what others do. The appeal to self-defence as a justification does not succeed, since it must expand the concept to involve a cumbersome weighing of harms. The argument that complying with a rule may involve too great a sacrifice in some cases needs to be developed by an account of when a sacrifice is morally significant. It is tempting, but problematic, to do this by weighing consequences of individual acts. An alternative approach is to argue that the behaviour of others is sometimes relevant to determining what rule is actually functioning in some context as a part of a particular moral system.     

The Killing Ground

No abstract available for this article.     

Breaking the rules in perceptual information integration

We develop a broad theoretical framework for modelling difficult perceptual information integration tasks under different decision rules. The framework allows us to compare coactive architectures, which combine information before it enters the decision process, with parallel architectures, where logical rules combine independent decisions made about each perceptual source. For both architectures we test the novel hypothesis that participants break the decision rules on some trials, making a response based on only one stimulus even though task instructions require them to consider both. Our models take account of not only the decisions made but also the distribution of the time that it takes to make them, providing an account of speed-accuracy tradeoffs and response biases occurring when one response is required more often than another. We also test a second novel hypothesis, that the nature of the decision rule changes the evidence on which choices are based. We apply the models to data from a perceptual integration task with near threshold stimuli under two different decision rules. The coactive architecture was clearly rejected in favor of logical-rules. The logical-rule models were shown to provide an accurate account of all aspects of the data, but only when they allow for response bias and the possibility for subjects to break those rules. We discuss how our framework can be applied more broadly, and its relationship to Townsend and Nozawa’s (1995) Systems-Factorial Technology.     

Christian Privilege: Breaking a Sacred Taboo

The author discusses the concept of privilege in terms of the benefits enjoyed by Whites and men (P. McIntosh, 1998). This article presents a new theoretical perspective focusing on religious privilege and includes a list of privileges that are enjoyed by members of the dominant religious group (i.e., Christians) in the United States. El autor discute el concepto del privilegio en cuanto a los beneficios que disfrutan los Blancos y los hombres (P. McIntosh, 1998). Este artículo presenta una nueva perspectiva teorética que enfoca al privilegio religioso e incluye una lista de privilegios que disfrutan miembros del grupo religioso dominante de los Estados Unidos, los cristianos.