一种个别性取向的实践哲学——评《理论思维与工程思维》

把关注的重点转向实践是当代哲学致思的一个基本趋向。但到目前为止 ,这一趋向在国内哲学界主要还只是表现在“元哲学”的层面上 ,只是以不同方式肯定了克服近代认识论哲学的现代实践哲学的必要性 ,至于这种哲学作为理论应该如何“操作” ,则尚未见有深入涉及者。徐长福的《理论思维与工程思维———两种思维方式的僭越与划界》 (上海人民出版社2 0 0 2年版。以下凡引该书只注明页码 )不仅自觉立足于现代实践哲学的立场之上 ,而且主要着眼于实践哲学的“操作”层面 ,用作者的话说 ,是在从事一种具有“个别性取向的实践哲学” (第 2 8页 )。…     

全国"国外法哲学学术研讨会"在渝举行

由中国现代外国哲学学会主办 ,西南师范大学经济政法学院和西南师范大学研究生部共同承办的全国“国外法哲学学术研讨会”于 2 0 0 0年 11月 4日至 6日在重庆举行。来自全国各地的专家学者 40余人与会并探讨了法哲学领域的一些基本问题。现将本次会议的基本内容概述如下。1 法哲学及其研究对象　西南政法大学教授文正邦认为 ,法哲学是从哲学的角度和用哲学的方法来研究法的理论和实践问题的一门学科 ,它以法学世界观和方法论为研究对象 ,既是应用哲学 (或部门哲学 )的一个门类 ,又是理论法学的一个分科 ,是介于哲学和法学之间并兼具二者属性…     

用马克思的思想统一对实践唯物主义的认识

最近一段时期以来,我国哲学界就马克思的实践唯物主义提出了种种不同的理解:有的否认马克思把实践引进了世界观,认为实践唯物主义只是表明唯物史观改造世界的功能的一个称呼,它没有提出崭新的哲学形态,也不是对某种哲学的称呼,并不是一种新的世界观;有的认为实践唯物主义就是实践本体论、实践一元论,应当用它去取代物质本体论;有的认为实践唯物主义包含有既强调实践的世界观意义,又始终坚持唯物主义这样两个方面的基本     

现今中国马克思主义哲学研究中的三个核心问题——一种基于回归马克思实践哲学范式的考察

<正>近年来中国马克思主义哲学研究范式正在发生一种深刻的转变。大致上说来,这种转变的核心之点,是从一种笼统的实践哲学转向回归马克思的实践哲学,即从包含实体性哲学范式和主体性哲学范式两种类型的理论哲学回归实践哲学,进而转向回归历史唯物主义。①这一转向所关涉的问题主要体现在三个方面:一是对于盛行了几十年的黑格尔主义阐释范式的超越,二是对于原本马克思思想的关注,三是对于中国现实问题的理论性关注。而由这些方面的转变,形成了一些具有重大意义的核心问     

生命进化与宇宙意识——柏格森的生命哲学

柏格森的生命哲学是一种"关于生命的哲学",但并非一种"基于生命的哲学"。柏格森区分了生命概念的两种含义,而他在《创造的进化》一书中所讨论的生命主要是生理生命。这样理解的生命,实际上是宇宙的两种运动,物质和意识的互相作用的结果。但值得注意的是,意识概念在一种宇宙论的意义上来加以理解,因为柏格森哲学有一种宇宙论的转向。     

理解的应用性与伽达默尔的"实践哲学走向"

如何看待伽达默尔(Hans-Georg Gadamer,1900～2002)中晚期哲学之间的关系?[1]这是近年来我国诠释学研究颇为关注的问题.严平先生认为,20世纪60年代末～70年代初,在与哈贝马斯的论战中,伽达默尔逐渐开始了从哲学诠释学到实践哲学的转向;[2]张能为先生也认为伽达默尔晚期哲学"实现了由理论解释学向实践解释学的转变,将解释学与实践哲学联系起来";[3]而何卫平先生则在肯定晚期实践哲学转向的同时,着重强调它"实现了从理解本体论向价值伦理学的转变".     

《应当区分哲学的二重性》

哲学是世界观的理论体系,处在双重关系之中,即它既是人们对客观世界最一般规律的反映,是一种理论知识体系,又是人们对社会经济基础的反映,属于社会意识形态。明确哲学的二重性具有重要意义:(1)可进一步理解“哲学”这个概念。哲学作为世界观的理论体系,既有其知识性,又有其意识形态性;(2)可帮助我们研究哲学史。从知识性来看,哲学史即是认识史,它     

现代实践哲学与历史唯物主义

对马克思主义哲学观的考察,特别是对其实践哲学解读,需将其置于现当代西方哲学转向的总体境遇下,借鉴西马对马克思主义哲学观的理解理路,并基于马克思"实践"范畴的新解及其哲学范式转换,指认马克思主义实践哲学只能是现代实践哲学,以彰显马克思主义哲学的时代特征和终结传统形而上学的哲学革命。然而,这种称谓只有在历史唯物主义世界观和解释原则下才是可能的,而且唯此才能使马克思主义的现代实践哲学既与西方传统实践哲学有别,又与当代西方实践哲学区分开来。     

近期全国报刊部分哲学论文索引

马列主义经典作家哲学思想研究意识形态 :一种政治分析———马克思意识形态概念新论稿 /郁建兴 //东南学术 ,2 0 0 2 .3论马克思的实践观 /迟超波 //马克思主义与现实 ,2 0 0 2 .3马克思文本研究史的初步清理与方法论省思 /聂锦芳 //哲学研究 ,2 0 0 2 .6人的自由而全面发展的     

"当代发展观的哲学阐释"学术研讨会综述

20 0 3年 2月 1 6日 ,“当代发展观的哲学阐释”学术研讨会在北京举行 ,该会由中共中央党校哲学部和《中国社会科学杂志社》联合主办 ,来自中国社会科学院、北京大学等科研单位的专家学者参与此会议。一、发展理论的元问题1 .发展概念的阐释。从哲学人类学的角度上 ,韩震分析了发展的缘起。人既是历史性的存在 ,也是超越性的存在。发展源于人的超越性的本质。赵敦华则从词源学的角度分析了发展概念的含义 ,认为 ,发展具有两层含义 :①发展是一种前进的方向性的变化 ,而不是随机的无方向性的进化 ;②发展是渐进式的变化 ,不是突变式的变化。…     

"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".     

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.     

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     

"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.     

The "Natural" and the "Formal"

The paper presents an argument against a metaphysical conception of logic according to which logic spells out a specific kind of mathematical structure that is somehow inherently related to our factual reasoning. In contrast, it is argued that it is always an empirical question as to whether a given mathematical structure really does captures a principle of reasoning. (More generally, it is argued that it is not meaningful to replace an empirical investigation of a thing by an investigation of its a priori analyzable structure without paying due attention to the question of whether it really is the structure of the thing in question.) It is proposed to elucidate the situation by distinguishing two essentially different realms with which our reason must deal: the realm of the natural, constituted by the things of our empirical world, and the realm of the formal, constituted by the structures that we use as prisms to view, to make sense of, and to reconstruct the world. It is suggested that this vantage point may throw light on many foundational problems of logic.