《管子》书作者

一、《管子》书非管仲作之原因晋博玄曰:“管仲之书,过半是后之好事者所加,乃说管仲死后事。其《轻重》篇尤复鄙俗。”(王应麟《困学纪闻》卷十引)唐孔颖达亦曰:“世有《管子》书者,或是后人所录。” (《十三经注疏》本《春秋正义》,《左传·庄公九年》)杜佑指略序曰:“其书载管仲将没对桓公之语,疑后人续之。”(王先谦校刊《衢州本郡斋读书志》卷十一引)宋代学者,发现更多之疑问,非但认为《管子》非管仲所作,且更大胆地推测其为何时何     

《乘马》篇考证

我同意关锋、林聿时考定《管子》书的《乘马》篇为管仲的遗著。在《就管仲遗著问题与胡家聪先生商榷》一文里,指出《乘马》之为管仲遗著的两个证据:一个是对“无为者帝,为而无以为者王,为而不贵者霸”,作出确切的解释,它正是管仲所作的证据(关、林已指出这一条,我作了补充论证);二是“方六里为一乘之地也”至“方六里一乘之地也,方一里九夫之田也”一段正是《国语·齐语》所概述的管仲“寄军令于内政”的具体内容;     

论管仲之谋的哲学意义

管仲之谋向为史家所称道.大史学家司马迁曾说:“齐桓公用管仲之谋,通轻重之权,邀山海之业,以朝诸侯,用区区之齐,显成霸名.”(《史记·平准书》)又说:“管仲既用,任政于齐,齐桓公以霸,九合诸侯,一匡天下,管仲之谋也.”(《史记·管仲传》)在中国历史上大有作为的齐桓公,运用管仲之谋,发展经济,充实国力,终于使偏居东海一隅的齐国,成为一度称霸于诸侯的一流强国.笔者根据流传至今的管仲及其学派的著作《管子》一书,并参之以其他文献,对管仲之谋加以研究,探讨其哲学文化内涵.     

《管子》托名管仲的历史意蕴

刘向领校群籍,遵循了以人名书的命名方式。以人名书,仅指其书为一家之学,非指其书为某人所作。以《管子》论,则仅指《管子》为管仲一家之学,并无《管子》为管仲所作之意。后世学者不明白以人名书的学术意蕴,惑于既以人名书则书必为其人撰的错误认识,纷纷展开《管子》中是否存在管仲思想、在多大程度上存在管仲思想、有哪些思想与管仲本人相对应的古籍真伪之辨。虽然真伪之辨稍有"辩乎其所不必辩者"的徒劳倾向,但从"辨章学术,考镜源流"的角度看,却代表了《管子》研究的深入。为了坐实《管子》的作者,当代学者提出管子学派说。此说虽有合理性成分,但比起《管子》为管仲一家之学的说法来,仍有逊色。《管子》以管仲为名,衍生出诸多可探讨的学术问题,这些均是《管子》托名管仲的历史意蕴在《管子》研究中的表现。     

《管子》学说的历史价值

管仲是春秋时代最著名的政治家,孔子曾称赞管仲为仁者。《管子》一书不可能是管仲自己撰写的,我认为是战国时代齐国推崇管仲的学者的著作的汇集。当时管仲在齐国的声望非常高,孟轲讥讽他的弟子公孙丑说:“子诚齐人也,知管仲、晏子而已矣。”足证齐国推崇管仲的人很多。近年以来,有些学者认为《管子》一书是齐国稷下学者著作的总汇。事实     

“管仲之器小哉”辨正

《论语·八佾》篇有“管仲之器小哉”一章,其中“器”字何晏、朱熹理解为“器量”“局量”,其他各家理解为“器用”“器才(材)”。“器”字在现存先秦文献中没有“器量”“局量”等词义,何晏、朱熹之训诂没有文献根据。根据孔子对管仲存亡继绝之历史功绩的评价和史料对管仲政治成就的记载,评价管仲为“器用小”或“器才(材)小”,是不合理的。清华简第六辑《管仲》篇有管仲言论作“既佞又仁,此谓成器”,当是《八佾》此章孔子和“或曰”者对话的背景和前提,“管仲之器小哉”当读为“管仲之‘器’小哉”,理解为“管仲所说的‘成器’太狭隘了吧”。孔子对管仲关于“成器”的定义持否定态度,大概源于二人的思想观念有所不同。     

试论管仲人才思想中的民本因素--以《管子》为中心

民本思想是齐文化的重要组成部分,也是管仲施政思想的基石,其言论．行动中都展示着民本思想的精华。而体现管仲思想的《管子》一书,对人才思想有较系统的论述。本文试以管仲为例,以《管子》一书为中心,来探析其人才思想中的民本因素,即“任其所长,不任其所短”的人才原则,包括其产生原因、表现方式、对后世所带来的社会影响等。     

台湾报刊有关管子研究论文索引

韩非子有关管仲遗言的论难张素贞《国文学报》管仲学术思想及其才智评估李勉《中国国学》论语“如其仁如其仁”意义的检辨郑力为《鹅湖》孔子究竟怎样评价管仲雷家骥《鹅湖》关于拙文“论语如其仁意义检辨”敬答雷家骥君郑力为《鹅湖》敬答郑君有关“如其仁”一文的答文雷家骥《鹅湖》管子思想与其新义孙斌《国立编译馆馆刊》齐桓公与管仲—九合诸侯,一匡天下吕安《今日中国》管子的法治思想陈敏男《革命思想》关于拙文“如其仁意义检辨”再敬答雷家骥君郑力为《鹅湖》孔子究竟如何评价管仲黄兆强《鹅湖》与黄兆强君论孔子评管仲书雷家骥《…     

管仲的治水思想与齐人的治水实践

水利是农业的命脉。古代齐国的农学家们正是在研究“草木之道”的大自然中,发现了水利对农业生产的重要作用。基于治水改土种植的大量实践活动,形成了齐人“水者,地之血气”的精辟见解。《管子》一书中《度地》、《乘马》、《水地》等篇章,不仅记载了管仲治水的思想,也真实地反映了古代齐国劳动人民治水的史实。     

论管仲对司马迁的影响

管仲是中国历史上著名的政治家、思想家。司马迁不仅在《史记》中创作了《管晏列传》,而且对管仲充满敬仰与赞颂之情。司马迁的人生观、生死观与义利观显然受到管仲的深刻影响。他们二人分别走的是“立功”、“立言”的道路,但都具有“不羞小节而耻功名不显于天下”的个性特征和奋发有为、建功立业的时代精神。     

"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.