陈·香——写在神学毕业季

正晚间,图书馆的阅览室里照旧只有我和勤工俭学的管理员两个人,但并不代表这里安静适合学习。尽管我们已经关闭了所有的窗户,甚至拉上了厚窗帘,但隔壁礼堂喧嚣的排练声响仍有力地穿透进来。我以老师的身份跑去表达了抗议,但收效甚微,不过几分钟礼貌性地减弱,随即又在亢奋的情绪中失控了。管理员无奈地对我说:"没用的,现在同学们都热衷于此。"这话我能理解:年轻人爱动、爱唱、爱展示是天性使然,本无可厚非,毕竟我也曾经历过热血躁动的青春时期。     

多么奇妙的更新

正"你是位奇妙的神,你是位奇妙的神,你创造了山林你创造大海,你使雀鸟在天空自由自在。你是位奇妙的神……"傍晚,疲惫的我点出手机里的这首赞美诗,合上眼睛,听着六岁的小孩子歌唱。这是他在主日学里学的第一首歌,旋律优美,宛如天籁。当时我录制下来,并且设了自动重复。听着听着,仿佛《诗篇》里的音律和叹息,渐渐拂     

先秦易学的"神明"概念与荀子的"神明"观

"神明"是<易传>关键概念之一,亦在先秦两汉思想范畴中被广泛使用.各家"神明"概念都与"天地"有关,并涉及天地自然造化之过程,古代"神明"不是作为某种祭祀对象而存在,也不表示神祇和鬼神的意义.笔者搜集归纳有关先秦两汉"神明"之资料,发现"神明"一词之用意牵涉天地万物之"德"概念.古人认为,天地万物之死生运行皆源自"德",皆由神明之安排,但"神明"并不具备造物主身份,而是天地合德概念."神明之德"被视为万物造化的原因,若以两个字来表达"神明"的本质,则应是"生机"一词.郭店<太一>阐明了"神明"体现天地的相辅,于是"神明"的作用即是天地之间的媒介、气化主宰者,故为"生机".荀子的"神明"观念,保留天地观的出发点,但同时集中于微观宇宙——"人"的核心概念.荀子对"神明"的定义近于黄老学派,既将"神明"视为"道"的唯一产物,又看作知"道"的唯一依据.只是黄老学派以神明论及天地观,而苟子藉此来探讨儒家的"君子养心"之议题.荀子之外,养生学派也将"心"视为"神明出"的器官,然而养生学派的观点是在表达"神明"是人中的"生机",而荀子藉此"神明"观,来探讨认识论的伦理问题.荀子的神明观,被宋明理学所继承.     

全国政协民宗委主任钮茂生、全国政协副秘书长蒋作君看望慰问中国道教协会负责人

2008年1月30日上午,中共中央统战部部长杜青林、副部长斯塔在二局局长周宁等人的陪同下,到北京白云观看望慰问中国道教协会负责人并与之进行了座谈.     

对"先天图与二进制关系"之争的考察与辨析

在11世纪,宋代易学家邵雍详细阐释了先天图;17世纪末18世纪初,德国数学家、哲学家莱布尼茨系统地提出了二进制.二者具有何种关系成为一个经久不衰的话题.本文首先认真地梳理和辨析了前人的研究成果,其次从反思先天图和二进制的文化意义出发,得出以下结论二进制是纯粹的数学方法,先天图是意蕴丰富的哲学符号,二者区别甚大,没有实质性的关系.     

一节阐明教内外关系的经文——中国基督教第八次代表会议闭幕礼拜的证道

我们感谢赞美天父的眷顾、救主耶稣基督的恩待和圣灵的引导,使我们中国基督教第八次代表会议圆满完成各项议程,胜利闭幕了.刚才我们所读的经文,可以作为会议所通过的工作报告和各项决议的圣经依据,证明会议所指明的方向、所坚持的原则、所提出的任务,都是正确的,天经地义的.     

诸恶莫作 众善奉行——中国道教界坚决反对打着宗教旗号大搞分裂祖国的罪恶行径

正当全国人民庆祝"两会"胜利召开和喜迎奥运之际,达赖集团却有组织、有预谋地精心策划和煽动极少数不法分子在拉萨等地进行打砸抢烧破坏活动,妄图把西藏从祖国分裂出去。对于这种政治图谋和罪恶行径,我们道教界表示强烈的愤慨和     

王重阳平等思想探析

全真道创始人王重阳,建立了以心性修炼为基础的道教内丹思想,力倡每个人都具有平等的心性本体,道性俱足,皆有成仙的可能.这一平等的思想体现在人与自然的关系上,就是万物平等,无有高下;体现在与其他教派的关系上,则是儒、释、道三家圆融平等;而在处世待人上,就要平等待人,不分人之贵贱高低,均须恭敬处之.本文试对这一思想的产生背景、内涵进行探析,进一步揭示其对于悟道、修道和传道的作用和影响.     

杨时承洛启闽的理学思想

程门弟子杨时承洛南传,开拓了洛学在南方的传播与发展,特别是为南宋朱熹闽学的诞生并上承二程洛学为儒学正脉提供了必要的学脉渊源.杨时的理学思想即是以洛学为宗,在洛学的论域内所作的阐释与发挥,他强调理本气化,重视分殊之用,主张反身格物,关注静中体验未发等,这些观点虽不为后学朱熹完全泥守,但却有开启闽学端绪之意义.杨时的理学思想在程朱理学的传衍中起上承下启的作用.     

光辉的足迹——在玄奘法师逝世一千三百周年纪念大会上的讲话

今年正逢玄奘法师诞辰1400周年纪念，为了缅怀这位佛门巨匠和世界文化伟人，佛教界在西安隆重举行了纪念玄奘法师诞辰1400周年法会及玄奘三藏院落成、玄奘顶骨舍利安奉、玄奘法师铜像揭幕庆典，还与学术界联合举办了“玄奘精神与西部文化学术研讨会”等系列纪念活动。　　早在1964年，已故的中国佛教协会赵朴初会长在首都佛教界、文化界纪念玄奘法师逝世1300周年大型集会上发表讲话，全面回顾了玄奘法师充实饱满的一生和极不平凡的成就，对玄奘法师的伟大精神及其对当今世界的意义作了高度评价。赵朴老在讲话中提出的编辑出版《玄奘全集》、编写《玄奘年谱》、校订《大唐西域记》等设想，在其后的三十多年中陆续成为现实；而修建玄奘纪念馆、设计制作玄奘法师雕像等愿望，也在佛教界的不懈努力下终得圆满。在纪念玄奘法师诞辰1400周年之际，重温赵朴老的这篇讲话，感到分外亲切。本期还选登了黄心川先生、惟贤法师在学术研讨会上的发言，特约日本法相宗大本山药师寺副住持安田 胤先生介绍玄奘法师与日本法相宗的因缘，请王尧先生介绍《大唐西域记》藏译本的有关情况，以此作为玄奘法师诞辰1400周年的纪念。     

W<Emphasis Type="SmallCaps">ang</Emphasis> Yangming’s 王陽明 Philosophy and Modern Theories of Democracy: A Reconstructive Interpretation

Liu Shipei 劉師培 (1884–1919) was the first scholar to locate intellectual resources of modern democracy in Wang Yangming’s theory of the “original knowing” (liangzhi 良知). In the 1950s there was a debate between Taiwanese liberals and the “New Confucians” over the relationship between the traditional Confucianism and modern democracy. Like Liu Shipei, the “New Confucians” justified modern democracy by means of Confucian philosophy (including that of Wang Yangming). For liberals, however, the Confucian tradition encompassed only the concept of “positive liberty,” which was irrelevant to or even incompatible with modern democracy. In this article, I try to argue for the position of the “New Confucians” by reconstructing Wang Yangming’s theory of the “original knowing” from a communitarian perspective.     

德性儒学的成就、困境与走向

Beginning with the promotion of morality in Confucianism, a Neo-Confucian movement in modern Chinese philosophy was initiated, in which Confucianism underwent a transition from tradition to modernity. However, Moral Confucianism did not successfully develop the “new kingliness without” from its “sageliness within,” respond to modernization marked by science and democracy, and provide moral impetus for the development of a modern Chinese society or appeal to many beyond the small circle of “elite Confucianists.” The fundamental reason is that it was caught in a web of moral idealism, overemphasizing what ought to be without confronting what actually was. Translated by Huang Deyuan from Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Xuebao 中国人民大学学报 (Journal of Renmin University of China), 2006, (1): 9–15     

早期现代哲学中的语言问题

The view of language is greatly changed from early modern philosophy to later modern philosophy and to postmodern philosophy. The linguistic question in early modern philosophy, which is characterized by rationalism and empiricism, is discussed in this paper. Linguistic phenomena are not at the center of philosophical reflections in early modern philosophy. The subject of consciousness is at the center of the philosophy, which makes language serve purely as an instrument for representing thoughts. Locke, Leibniz and Descartes consider language from a representationalist point of view. To them, language itself is idealized and represents thought as if it were thought representing itself. Like the structural linguist Saussure, the founders of phenomenology and analytical philosophy give much attention to the logical or static structure of language, and stick up for the representationalism of early modern philosophy. However, their successors refuse to accept this attitude, meaning the final collapse of representationalism. Translated by Cui Zengbao and Yang Dachun from Zhexue Yanjiu 哲学研究 (Philosophical Research), 2007, (8): 62–67     

Utopia and history. Some remarks about Nikolai Berdjaev’s struggle with history

The article deals with the philosophy of Nikolai Berdjaev (1874–1948), which he formulated between The Philosophy of Inequality (written in 1918, but published in 1923) and The New Middle-Ages (1924). Berdjaev’s philosophy is analyzed in the context of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and its aftermath. The other point of reference is the crisis of culture and civilisation, which affected the West in the inter-war period. Berdjaev’s position has been interpreted in view of the archetypal myth of the struggle of the two principles, the principle of order (cosmos) and the forces of destruction (chaos). This myth is tied to the millenialist world view. Berdjaev took an anti-utopian stance. He juxtaposed the utopian-revolutionary principle with the hierarchical-creative one. From this position he criticized among others democracy, liberalism and socialism. In the midst of the crisis of the 1920s he remarked the possibility of spiritual rejuvenation putting forward the concept of the New Middle-Ages. One can say that at that time Berdjaev’s philosophy evolved within the conservative-creative framework, from the utopia of conservatism to the utopia of ‘free creativity’.     

Democracy and Education: About the Future of a Problem

In 20th century’s European theory of education there was little interest in philosophy ofdemocracy. John Dewey’sDemocracy and Education was translated in nearly every European language but did not become the center of discussion. Even “radical education” was much more childcentered than open to radical questions of political democracy. This article discusses the problem in two respects, first the tension between neo-liberalism’s concept of individuality and public education, and second the future problems of a theory of “democratic education”after Dewey. The aim is to overcome traditional European dualisms like that of “citizen”or “man” i.e. to pave the way for a post-Rousseauian theory of education. Inaugural lecture upon taking office at the University of Zurich on 22nd November 1999.     

The Political Egalitarian’s Dilemma

Political egalitarianism is at the core of most normative conceptions of democratic legitimacy. It finds its minimal expression in the “one person one vote” formula. In the literature on deliberative democracy, political equality is typically interpreted in a more demanding sense, but different interpretations of what political equality requires can be identified. In this paper I shall argue that the attempt to specify political equality in deliberative democracy is affected by a dilemma. I shall illustrate the political egalitarian’s dilemma by a hypothetical choice between two informational bases for political equality: Rawlsian primary goods and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. The political egalitarian’s dilemma reveals a clash between the requirement of ensuring equal possibilities to participate in the democratic process and the requirement of subjecting substantive judgments to deliberative evaluation. As such, the dilemma is a variant of the procedure vs. substance dilemma that is well-known in democratic theory. While it has sometimes been argued that deliberative democracy solves the tension between procedure and substance, the political egalitarian’s dilemma shows that this tension continues within deliberative democracy.

Counting distinctions: on the conceptual foundations of Shannon’s information theory

Categorical logic has shown that modern logic is essentially the logic of subsets (or “subobjects”). In “subset logic,” predicates are modeled as subsets of a universe and a predicate applies to an individual if the individual is in the subset. Partitions are dual to subsets so there is a dual logic of partitions where a “distinction” [an ordered pair of distinct elements (u, u′) from the universe U] is dual to an “element”. A predicate modeled by a partition π on U would apply to a distinction if the pair of elements was distinguished by the partition π, i.e., if u and u′ were in different blocks of π. Subset logic leads to finite probability theory by taking the (Laplacian) probability as the normalized size of each subset-event of a finite universe. The analogous step in the logic of partitions is to assign to a partition the number of distinctions made by a partition normalized by the total number of ordered |U|² pairs from the finite universe. That yields a notion of “logical entropy” for partitions and a “logical information theory.” The logical theory directly counts the (normalized) number of distinctions in a partition while Shannon’s theory gives the average number of binary partitions needed to make those same distinctions. Thus the logical theory is seen as providing a conceptual underpinning for Shannon’s theory based on the logical notion of “distinctions.” This paper is dedicated to the memory of Gian-Carlo Rota—mathematician, philosopher, mentor, and friend.     

Reviving the Past for the Future?: The (In)compatibility between Confucianism and Democracy in Contemporary China

The issue of (in)compatibility between Confucianism and modern democracy, particularly in China, has attracted much debate over the decade. This article singles out the particular notion of Minben 民本, which is at the center of the argument for a ‘Confucian democracy’, and argues that it is fundamentally different from modern democracy. However, this does not mean that Confucianism could not be connected with modern democracy. The important question is: what exactly does it mean to ‘connect’ Confucianism to the modern society? The author argues that only by being disconnected with political power could there be meaningful ‘Confucian democracy’ today in China.     

哲学的教化与教化的哲学——论儒学精神的根本特质

Edification 教化 is one of the central concepts of Confucianism. The metaphysical basis of the Confucian edification is the “philosophical theory” in the sense of rational humanism rather than the “religious doctrine” in the sense of pure faith. Confucianism did not create a system of ceremony and propriety owned by Confucians only. The system of ceremony and propriety on which Confucians depend to carry out their social edification is that of “rites and music,” the common life style of ancient China. After continual metaphysical explanation and elevation, the system of ceremony and propriety and that of rites and music have undergone a sort of ever-evolving historical fluctuation, and evinced a sort of openness and forgiveness comparable to that of any other religious form. Compared with typical religious practices, whose ceremonies and rituals that have their own special fixity and exclusivity, Confucian ceremonies and rituals are fundamentally different. The edification of Confucianism can be labeled as “edification in the sense of philosophy.” As a “philosophy”, Confucianism’s vision did not focus on cognition but on completion and realization. Translated by Lei Yongqiang from Tianjin Shehui Kexue 天津社会科学 (Tianjin Social Sciences), 2005, (6): 19–26     

A secular age? Reflections on Taylor and Panikkar

During the last few years two major volumes have been published, both greatly revised versions of earlier Gifford Lectures: Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age (2007) and Raimon Panikkar’s The Rhythm of Being (2010). The two volumes are similar in some respects and very dissimilar in others. Both thinkers complain about the glaring blemishes of the modern, especially the contemporary age; both deplore above all a certain deficit of religiosity. The two authors differ, however, both in the details of their diagnosis and in their proposed remedies. Taylor views the modern age—styled as “secular age”—as marked by a slide into secular agnosticism, into “exclusive humanism”, and above all into an “immanent frame” excluding theistic “transcendence”. Although sharing the concern about “loss of meaning”, Panikkar does not find its source in the abandonment of (mono)theistic transcendence; on the contrary, both radical transcendence and agnostic immanence are responsible for the deficit of genuine faith. For him, recovery of faith requires an acknowledgment of our being in the world, as part of the “rhythm of being” happening in a holistic or “cosmotheandric” mode. In classical Indian terminology, while Taylor’s emphasis on the transcendence-immanence tension reflects ultimately a dualistic perspective (dvaita), Panikkar’s holistic notion of the rhythm of being captures the core of Advaita Vendanta.