老庄生命哲学之和谐心灵生态生成论——以“道生之,德畜之,物形之,势成之”为中心

老庄生命哲学具有强烈的自然生命意识和生命自由精神,蕴含着朴素的心灵生态思想。生命哲学之"道",既不是西方的实体性自然,也不是具体存在的事物本身,而是一种敞显"自己如此"的状态,即人的内在的生命呼声。《老子》之"道生之,德畜之,物形之,势成之",从本体、价值、实践、境界之维阐释了和谐心灵生态的化成路径。"道"生之以生命之本,"德"畜之以心灵之真,"物"形之以心灵之善,"势"成之以心灵之美,通过尊道贵德和人文化成,育成悠然达生的心灵生态,为人们在现代性境遇下自觉化育和谐心灵秩序提供必要的古典智慧。     

守死善道:“曾子有疾”两章解读

《论语·泰伯》"曾子有疾"两章都是关于曾子临终场景的记录,编次的倒置彰显了孔子守死善道教诲的主题。守死、善道是曾子守死心态和修身意志的表征,因而守死得以守护死亡、喜悦全归,善道得以留存礼之不善而"贵乎道"之善。检视身体、踏上归途之守死是对死亡的接纳,因而守死指涉修身的外延;人之将死,尚能"动容貌"、"正颜色"、"出辞气",此之善道是对生命的坚持,因而善道指涉修身的内涵。曾子的身体爱欲,是孝和仁的巅峰体验;"言不远身","行不远身",是"先行其言而后从之"的君子风范和儒家修身哲学革命性、彻底性的表达。     

王艮源于“身”的治理思想研究

"身"是王艮治理思想的逻辑起点与核心思想。首先,王艮视身与天下国家统一于"一物",以"本末"分析此物,得出"身"为本的结论。"身"具有个体、身躯与精神的三重内涵,王艮视身躯之"生"为根本,进而推衍出"身"生为身之根本。他以"即事是道"解"道",故"尊身为道",又将"道"具体化为"百姓日用"。其次,王艮以"身"生为普遍原则,从个人之安身与百姓之安身两个层面构筑社会治理的理路,而治理效果最终落脚于个人修身层面。最后,王艮将身与心分离,从顺性乐心与反己自修的统一来推进修养工夫的落实。王艮从"身"本体出发向"身"本性的回归,由"身"思天下,以安身治社会、反己修身的治理思路超越了以往阳明学致思模式,有别于传统儒家政治治理理念,具有十分重要的理论价值。     

从“守一”到“心灵的逍遥”

对于儒、释、道之特质,人们惯于用"儒家治世、道家治身、佛家治心"概括之。笼统地讲,这种表达不能算错,但却不准确。事实上,三教皆"外能治世,中可治身(家),内以修心",只不     

中国美学之生命美学精神

中国美学"重生""乐生",呈现出一种独具民族特色的生命美学精神。"生",意指生命、生存。就语义学看,"重生""乐生"之所谓"生",原初义为生育、生养、滋生、生长,而生命、生活、生存等则为衍生义。所谓"天地之大德曰生"。天地最大的"德",就是孕育出生命,并且承载、维持着生命的延续。"生""生生","人"之生存,生生相续,乃是宇宙天地间的"大德"。"大德"就是"生"。由此,中国美学要求诗歌审美创作"陶写性灵""发抒性灵""真有性灵",因追求一种真实、贴切的生命体验而独具特色。"性灵"的实质就是"生"之趣、"生"之味与"生"之灵性,而"发抒性灵",就是"生"之趣、"生"之味与"生"之灵性的一种诗意抒发。就某种意义看,所谓"生"之趣、"生"之味与"生"之灵性,就是"人"的一种生命意识。     

孝何以为道——以《论语》“无改于父之道”章为中心

"孝道"是儒家伦理思想的重要组成部分。孔子所强调的孝的真实依据在于正当合理之"道",源自于传承氏族生存经验、延续氏族生命,指向对作为至高德性价值的仁的追求。"三年无改于父之道"亦并不是盲目地听从父母之言,而是基于理性的道德判断与对父母深切的爱慕之情,继承先辈所开拓之志业、弘传先辈所传承之善道。孝同时表达了父母与子女之间的双向关系,孝不仅意味着子女通过自身道德实践培养自己的德性人格,也意味着父母成为爱慕、学习、模仿的典范,从而使父母、子女双方的德性人格得以共同实现。     

“生命”与“生活”:理解道教学说的两个维度

本文对"生命道教"与"生活道教"两种说法的来历进行了梳理,认为"生命"概念多与传统道教之"治身""度己""仙道""出世"等说法相关,而"生活"问题则属"治国""度人""人道""入世"诸论范围,且道教之"度己"(仙道)乃与"度人"(人道)紧密相联、难以分割,实为其成仙学说之一体两面,如果仅强调其中某一方面,将令另一方面受到削弱。     

心安与身安——《论语》“宰我问三年之丧”章疏解

《论语》"宰我问三年之丧"章中安字出现五次,可分为两组:"女安"之安、"居处不安"之安。解释史上有两说:一、两组安字都指"心安";二、女安之安指"心安",居处不安之安指"身安"。但它们都存在一些问题,值得考虑的是第三种解释:两组安字都指"身安",且这是涵盖心安的整个人之安、身心一体之安。而"不安"有两层含义:不会"安"(未安)、会"不安"(不忍安、耻于安)。从身心一体之"身安"角度,可使对此章所说的"仁—礼"关系有一新的认知。     

老子“玄同”思想义解 社会公共体与生命共同体的建构

<正>社会共同体的建构《老子》一书五千言,看似往而不返,实则有着明确的逻辑理路。开宗明义所言之"道"非"常道",其所言之"名"亦非"常名",并以有无之和合而为"道"玄妙之所在;继而以"遮诠"的方式对"道"进行描述而非定义:"道"     

老子之“道”义旨阐要

本文从"道"字古义的哲理升华、老子之"道"的价值取向、老子之"道"的形上品格、老子之"道"与其"德""教""治"诸范畴之关系等角度,扼要而系统地阐发了老子之"道"的深刻意蕴。文中指出,《老子》五千言虽多涉及"德""教""治",但"道"一以贯之于其中。     

"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.