道教思想影响下的绘画 以《瑞鹤图》为例

<正>北宋皇帝宋徽宗赵佶的《瑞鹤图》,画面内容极具特色,在内容上使用道教的文化象征符号,在技法上将写实手法与超自然的内容融于一体,用以表现“天降祥瑞”的主题。一现藏于辽宁省博物馆的《瑞鹤图》是北宋皇帝宋徽宗赵佶的作品,它描绘了二十只形态各异的丹顶鹤出现于北宋汴梁（今河南开封）宫城正门宣德门之上的场景,这既是宋徽宗艺术创作成果中的精品,也是北宋瑞应图的典型代表。     

说反话的智慧

正西周时期的青铜器,被后人视为宝物,尤其铜鼎更是珍贵。后代的帝王倘若得到一只周鼎,就会以为是上天降下的吉兆。汉武帝时,有一次在汾阴发现了一只周鼎,武帝高兴坏了,先把它放在太庙,感觉不妥,随后又藏在甘泉宫。大臣们知道汉武帝特别迷信,为了讨他喜欢,都纷纷上表祝贺,极尽献媚之能事。唯有光禄大夫吾丘寿王却与众不同,说:"这并非周鼎!"汉武帝一听十分生气,就差人将他召来问道:"我得到一只周鼎,     

墨家“鬼察鬼罚说”与道教“除算减年说”

墨家学说中有"鬼察鬼罚说",宣扬上天不欲世人为恶而欲世人为善,上天派鬼神监察世人;世人好事做多了,天神就与之增寿;反之则予减寿.这一学说被道教吸收,增加"子孙承负说"和"地神拷问说",发展为"除算减年说",使此学说更具威慑力,更利于在民间推扬,因而更加深入民心.自汉代起,它与久已流行的原始崇拜仪式--祀灶仪式结合,发展为灶神信仰,产生出家家有灶神,灶神代天检察监督世人,并于年末上天报告此家人善恶诸事,然后加减计算,或增寿或减寿的信仰习俗.     

学会“发泄”

韩国民间有个故事,叫做“皇帝长了驴耳朵”。长了驴耳朵的皇帝只让理发帅知道他的秘密,并命理发师发誓不把秘密泄露。日子久了,理发师觉得把这个秘密压在心中好难受,几乎要发狂。然而,他又不敢对外人说出这个秘密。如果说了,既违背自己的诺言,又将招来杀身之祸。后来,他终于想出一个发泄的两全之计：在地上挖一个大洞,每天对着大洞狂吼几句：“皇帝长了一对驴耳朵！”于是,他发泄了,心理平衡了。由于我们都会遇到一些不愉快的事情,这就会造成一定心理压力。心理压力是导致人们患病的重要因素,压力过大,就会失去心理平衡。所以…     

张九成基于心学思想的天人感应论

张九成提出"念动于中,事形于外",认为内心念虑能够影响外界事物,造成祥瑞灾异及种种自然现象。与汉代天人感应说相比,张九成思想一方面消解了"天"的人格神意味,一方面把灾异的根源归诸人心念虑,从而将天人感应融入到心学体系中。张九成基于心学的天人感应论以气论为基础,认为天地之间一气流行,人内心的念虑会形成和气或恶气,进而影响万物。通过内心—气—事物的结构,他将自然界纳入到以人为中心的世界之中,人是世界变化运动的枢纽。这一建构,使天人感应在宋代心学思想中获得了新的内涵和价值。     

简说钟馗

说到钟馗,几乎家喻户晓,没有人不知道的。但是,说到钟馗的来源,知道的人恐伯就不多了。那么,钟馗是怎么来的呢? 其一,全凭民间传说而来。这是说,古人以木做成棒槌状作辟邪之物,曰“椎”,又称“终癸”。群执其椎围火而舞之,以示消灾吉庆丰收之意。后经历代演变,遂成人形,曰“钟馗”。这似乎近于图腾演绎而     

古人藉“字”脱险记

这一点只能顶在头上唐朝有个叫任王的秀才,有一年考中了头名状元。宣宗皇帝接见时,任王跪地喊道:“新科状元,任王参见,吾皇万岁!”皇帝心想:自己才是一国之主、人中之王,你个新科状元竟敢称“人王”,这还了得。于是他对新科状元说:“我觉得你的名字不太好, 就赐你在王字上加一点吧!”任王连忙叩头“谢主隆恩”。     

简谈生物学上的理论学说及其发展史

人类对自然现象的解释,是按人类对自然现象的认识和科学资料的积累而逐渐改变和发展的。研究一门学科,了解这门学科发展的历史和理论思想的概况,是很重要的。因为这样可以接受前人的经验和知识,扩大我们的眼光,在工作上可以少走一些弯路。本文的内容是谈谈生物学上的理论学说及其发展的历史,作为我们学习自然科学史、哲学史的开端。 “存在决定意识”,人们的世界观是和人们的社会历史条件、阶级立场分不开的。几千年     

福从天降

圣诞节，一个普世期盼万民欢腾的节日，所有的希望为此倾注，所有的心灵为此鼓舞。正如《圣经》上所说：“诸天，请由上滴下甘露，望云彩降下仁义，愿大地裂开生出救恩，愿正义一同出生！”（依45：8）的确，耶稣基督的降临，就是上天降下的甘露、仁义、救恩、滋润着人们干渴的灵魂，美化着人类的心灵环境，开拓着人间的圣化工程。2002年前，救主取人性降生在一个山洞的简陋马槽中，他带给人类的不仅是再生的希望和天堂大门的再一次打开，最重要的是带给人类了悔过醒悟、避恶从善、重新做人，走向天主的机会，这种机会，是以救主屈尊就卑、…     

尔识真理、真理释尔

主耶稣说:“你们必晓得真理,真理必叫你们得以自由。”(约 8:32)这句话的古汉语译文就是:“尔识真理,真理释尔”,成为基督教女青年会的会训。当我第一次读到这句话时,就被这话语所抓住,因为它本身就带着极深奥的哲理。 真理不同于道理、学说、     

"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.