儿童经济现象认知的研究进展

经济现象广泛存在于社会生活,对经济现象的认知是儿童社会认知的重要组成部分。儿童对经济现象的认知包括对基本经济概念、经济原则、经济规律和经济行为的认知等。研究表明,儿童对基本经济概念的理解随着年龄的增长而不断发展,但是受环境和经验因素的影响,存在跨文化的差异。儿童对不同经济概念理解的发展是不同步的。儿童可能很早就出现对基本经济概念内隐性的理解。儿童对经济原则和经济规律的理解也是随着年龄的增长而不断发展的,并且和他们对基本经济概念的理解息息相关。储蓄行为是一种重要的经济行为。12岁的儿童能够理解储蓄的多重目的,并仍处于发展之中。     

社会主义市场经济和利益关系

在不同的经济关系下有不同的经济利益。在社会主义市场经济关系下,人们之间的利益关系必然发生与以往的利益关系根本不同的变化。这种变化表现为四个方面:一是个人利益和社会利益的统一原則;二是社会利益原则;三是企业本位利益原则;四是个人利益原则。     

论国家经济职能和体制改革

当前的体制改革,涉及到如何认识国家经济职能问题。从历史唯物主义的观点看,在不同社会制度下和不同的发展时期,国家作为上层建筑的主要部分,同社会经济生活各处于何种关系之中?国家经济职能的发展趋势,究竟是强化还是弱化?在体制改革中实行简政放权、政企分开,是意味着国家经济职能的弱化,还是意味着实现国家经济职能的形式或途径发生了变化?国家经济职能同所有制形式的关系是怎样的?国家经济职能与自觉调节、计划管理的关系是怎样的?怎样实现国家对经济的宏观控制?等等。在这些问题上,理论界存在着不同的认识。杜海燕同志的这篇文章所阐述的,是其中的一种观点。为了在这些问题上统一认识,不仅要系统、准确地理解经典作家的有关论述,还需要对现实过程所暴露的矛盾作创造性的科学分析、恰当的理论概括和预测,需要在不同意见之间展开正常而充分的讨论。同时,这些问题也可以从不同的角度来探讨。比如,本刊去年开始的关于经济制度和经济体制关系问题的讨论,同这些问题就可能有某种联系。     

论公平范畴

公平体现了人们之间的利益关系 ,具有历史性和相对性。公平有不同的外延 ,如分配公平、经济公平、社会公平等等。公平的种类可以从动态和静态的不同角度进行划分。社会主义公平是经济公平与社会公平的统一 ,要努力实现机会公平与结果公平的结合 ,静态公平与动态公平的结合。在经济伦理领域 ,公平范畴具有两个层次 :一是作为规范的公平原则 ;二是与效率联系在一起作为经济伦理的重要价值目标的公平原则。     

政治经济学批判的不同哲学方法——马克思对蒲鲁东系列辩证法的批判及其评述

哲学方法的不同,造成了蒲鲁东和马克思对社会经济现象理解的对立和政治经济学批判的不同路径。前者把普遍理性看作社会存在的前提,认为社会经济形态的演进是作为普遍理性的工具的经济范畴矛盾运动的结果,尝试用系列辩证法来构建一门新的社会经济学。后者则以现实的个人及其活动为起点来把握社会和历史,认为经济范畴只是特定社会时期生产关系的理论表现和暂时产物,在唯物史观的维度下有针对性地批判蒲鲁东系列辩证法,并且萌发出政治经济学研究的科学方法,延用到《资本论》及其手稿中。观照社会经济现象的不同哲学方法的背后,是马克思和蒲鲁东对黑格尔辩证法的不同态度、把握社会现实的不同程度和社会变革方法的不同可行性,这些足以成为评判他们哲学方法的依据。     

经济蕴涵的伦理本义

经济学与伦理学存在着直接或间接、显性或隐性的互相渗透和依存关系。经济不是“脱离道德”的 ,它不仅受经济规律的控制 ,而且总是在由人的意愿、期望、追求、信仰和道德所组成的合力作用下进行的。人类经济行为内部及与其相联系的主体人格素质本身实际存在着丰富而深刻的伦理意义。首先 ,伦理关系是经济系统的一种自生关系 ;其次 ,伦理观念是经济秩序的价值特征。不同类型的经济秩序会孕育产生出不同的伦理观念和行为方式 ;最后 ,伦理选择也是一种经济规则和经济目的的实现机制。经济的伦理本义的发挥不仅受制于社会伦理的背景影响 ,而且直接受制于具体的经济体制、经济制度以及经济发展模式的现实规约。     

企业经济伦理体征:含义、再造与基本理念

企业通常由经济功能与伦理功能相互依存、彼此关联构成,是一种伦理型经济单元和经济型伦理单元的复合。在企业成长的不同阶段,企业的经济伦理体征呈现出不同的特点。企业必须不断地再造适应其经济伦理体征的价值观才能完善其二元系统的"合作体征",而合作体征的基础在于:运用忠诚理念,改善企业伦理认同;运用信任理念,融合企业社会资本。     

区域差异背景下我国地方政府债务与经济增长关系研究——基于省级面板数据的分析

本文基于2001-2017年省级地方政府数据,通过动态面板回归模型研究发现:地方政府债务对经济增长的影响呈现倒"U"型,我国人均负债余额的临界点是25466元。东部地区的债务承受能力最高,其次是西南地区,东北地区的债务承受能力最低。地方政府债务对不同地区的经济增长推动不同,西南地区的经济增长推动作用明显强于东北地区。针对不同区域应采取不同的债务政策,可以更为合理的推动当地经济发展。     

农村经济精英带领村民致富的能力和意愿探析

农村经济精英带领村民致富既是社会问题、经济问题,也是政治问题。农村经济精英带领村民致富受到意愿和能力的限制,因而有＂有心有力型＂、＂有力无心型＂、＂有心无力型＂和＂无力无心型＂四种类型。对于不同类型的农村经济精英应该有不同的态度,支持＂有心有力型＂,提高＂有心无力＂者的能力,让＂有力无心＂者变得＂有心＂,淘汰＂无心无力型＂。     

“关于考察世界经济动向方法论问题”的笔谈──关于考察西方经济理论和世界经济动向的方法论问题

研究西方经济理论和世界经济动向，需要有正确的方法。下面谈谈我们在经济研究工作中经常遇到的几个方法论问题。一、阶级分析法是否已经过时？社会经济生活充满着矛盾，处于不同社会群体、集团、阶层和阶级中的人们具有不同的经济利益。不同的经济学家对于同一经济问题往往作出不同的解释，得出不同的结论，提出不同的政策主张。除了认识方面的原因之外，这主要是因为经济学所研究的材料具有特殊性，它直接涉及不同社会群体、集团、阶层和阶级的利益。马克思主义者公开承认经济学的阶级性，并且自觉地站在工人阶级和广大劳动人民的立场上研…     

Aristotle’s harmony with Plato on separable and immortal soul

The possibility of a harmony between the psychological doctrine of Aristotle and that of Plato marks a significant issue within the context of the debate surrounding Aristotle’s putative opposition to or harmony with Plato’s philosophy. The standard interpretation of Aristotle’s conception of the soul being purely hylomorphic leaves no room for harmonisation with Plato, nor does a functionalist interpretation that reduces Aristotle’s psychological doctrine to physicalist terms. However, these interpretations have serious drawbacks, both in terms of ad-hoc explanations formulated in the developmentalist mode, and the misconstruing of some of the fundamental features of Aristotle’s psychological doctrine. A dualist interpretation that accepts Aristotle’s doctrine of some part of the soul being properly incorporeal, separable and immortal overcomes these drawbacks and, significantly, opens the door for Platonic harmonisation. Furthermore, it can be shown that the kind of immortality in question is also in line with the Platonic stance, due to a deep similarity between the conceptions of metaphysical and moral personhood held by Plato and his student. However, this Aristotelian dualism is not Platonic dualism simpliciter. Rather, it is best understood in terms of the division of labour between Aristotle and Plato suggested by the Neoplatonic commentators generally, and Simplicius in particular. I argue that though questions surrounding these issues and particularly the issue of reincarnation remain, an account of Aristotle’s psychological doctrine as dualist and in harmony with Plato’s view of the soul can be shown to be stronger than both standard hylomorphic and functionalist accounts, both exegetically and philosophically.     

Aristotle’s dilemma

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle appears to use an elegant short argument to attack Plato’s doctrine of the good, which argument equally appears to attack Aristotle’s own doctrine of the good. I consider these two questions: First: Why does Aristotle reverse the judgment of Socrates/Plato on the issue: Which is better – things that are (only) good in themselves, or things that are both good in themselves and good for their consequences? Second: Why does Aristotle attack Plato’s doctrine that the Form of the Good is the chief good, with an argument that appears to threaten his own view that eudaimonia is the chief good? I think the answers to these two questions are related. The elegant short argument in question I call “Aristotle’s Fast Argument.”After apologizing for criticizing views held by friends of his, Aristotle deploys the Fast Argument as a clincher to cap off his refutation of Plato’s view that the Form of the Good is the chief good: “And one might ask the question, what in the world they mean by ‘a thing itself’, if in man himself and in a particular man the account of man is one and the same. For in so far as they are men, they will in no respect differ; and if this is so, neither will there be a difference in so far as they are good. But again it will not be good any the more for being eternal, since that which lasts long is no whiter than that which perishes in a day.” (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1096 a34–b4). I explore this sketchily presented Fast Argument. I consider why Aristotle may think it is valid and why he does not seem to realize that, on readings that make it effective against Plato’s view, his Fast Argument also seems to apply to his own view that eudaimonia is the chief good. This is what I will call “Aristotle’s Dilemma.” If the Fast Argument is interpreted too narrowly, its point about the whiteness of a white thing being independent of its duration will not apply to the goodness of the Form of the Good. If it is interpreted broadly enough to undermine the claim of the Form of the Good to be the chief good, it will equally undermine that claim for eudaimonia. Finally, I discuss some of the things Plato and Aristotle say about the chief good, and comparable things Immanuel Kant says about the good will. I draw some speculative conclusions that focus on the importance for Aristotle of the goodness of the chief good not being at risk.     

Varieties of Knowledge in Plato and Aristotle

I develop the relatively familiar idea of a variety of forms of knowledge??not just propositional knowledge but also knowledge-how and experiential knowledge??and show how this variety can be used to make interesting sense of Plato??s and Aristotle??s philosophy, and in particular their ethics. I then add to this threefold analysis of knowledge a less familiar fourth variety, objectual knowledge, and suggest that this is also interesting and important in the understanding of Plato and Aristotle.     

Anti-Realist Interpretations of Plato: Paul Natorp

The paper considers Paul Natorp's Kantian reading of Plato's theory of ideas, as developed in his monumental work, Platos Ideenlehre, eine Einführung in den Idealismus (1903, 1921). Central to Natrop's reading are, I argue, the following two claims: (1) Plato's ideas are laws, not things; and (2) Plato's theory of ideas in the first instance a theory about the possibility and nature of thought - in particular cognitive and indeed scientific or explanatory thought - and only as a consequence is it a theory about the nature of reality. Natrop thus argues that Plato's theory of ideas is at its heart a transcendental theory, and that Plato's metaphysics is built on this basis. The paper considers these claims - and their textual basis in Plato - in some detail, and attempts an initial evaluation of their plausibility as a reading of Plato. I am on the whole sympathetic to Natorp's reading, though a proper assessment goes beyond the present paper. The wider interest of this idealist or anti-realist reading of Plato ought to be obvious, especially in view of the commonly accepted assumption these days that both Plato and Aristotle, and indeed the Greeks in general, took realism entirely for granted (see e.g. M. Burnyeat). Natorp argues that this is true of Aristotle, but quite untrue of Plato. But he is quite clear that the idealism he ascribes to Plato is not Berkeleyan or metaphysical idealism, but a certain kind of transcendental or epistemological idealism. Natorp, however, is no uncritical follower of Kant, and the version of trascendental idealism that he ascribes to Plato is, I argue, very different from Kant's.     

Superiority in Humor Theory

In this article, I consider the standard interpretation of the superiority theory of humor attributed to Plato, Aristotle, and Hobbes, according to which the theory allegedly places feelings of superiority at the center of humor and comic amusement. The view that feelings of superiority are at the heart of all comic amusement is wildly implausible. Therefore textual evidence for the interpretation of Plato, Aristotle, or Hobbes as offering the superiority theory as an essentialist theory of humor is worth careful consideration. Through textual analysis I argue that not one of these three philosophers defends an essentialist theory of comic amusement. I also discuss the way various theories of humor relate to one another and the proper place of a superiority theory in humor theory in light of my analysis.     

Chaïm Perelman: Justice,argumentation and ancient rhetoric

Theoretical interest in Perelman's thought is linked, for the main part, to the place he accords to the notion of argumentation, defined in his work in reference to the Greek philosophy, as represented by Plato and Aristotle, in contrast to the assertions of the sophists and rhetors. He separates the notion of demonstration and that of argumentation and supports his position on an analysis of the debates which were common in the sophistic and rhetoric period.It is in different ways that the notion of argumentation comes into the work of Perelman. By taking up again the analysis of justice with the aim of removing the various strata of meaning which had accumulated on it as a result of the reductions of Plato and the dialectical analyses of Aristotle, Perelman showed that the theory of argumentation transcends the domain of right in which it is rooted and ought not be abandoned to lawyers only. Thus, he follows a train of thought to which he accords a certain nobilty in the name of the new rhetoric. This manner of considering the relationship of the moderns to the Greeks leads him to set up the notion of argumentation in his own texts, where it demonstrates a logical retreat which enables him to work back from Aristotle to Plato and from him to the rhetors and sophists, whose discourse is defined on the level of the self-referential.The exemplary character of Perelman's work is on account of this rehabilitation of argumentation in the old rhetoric which will be examined here.A slightly different version of this essay was presented at the Third Intenational Philosophy Symposium on Justice, Athens, 22–27 May 1987.     

Metaphysics and Morality in Neo-Confucianism and Greece: Zhu Xi, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus

If Zhu Xi had been a western philosopher, we would say he synthesized the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus: that he took from Plato the theory of forms, from Aristotle the connection between form and empirical investigation, and from Plotinus self-differentiating holism. But because a synthesis abstracts from the incompatible elements of its members, it involves rejection as well as inclusion. Thus, Zhu Xi does not accept the dualism by which Plato opposed to the rational forms an irrational material principle, and does not share Aristotle’s irreducible dualism between form and prime matter, or his teleology. Neither does he share Plotinus’ indifference to the empirical world. Understanding how these similarities and differences play out against one another will help us discover what is at stake in their various commitments.     

生活的沉思与沉思的生活——亚里士多德善与德性概念之探析

本通过考察善与德性概念的意义变迁,揭示柏拉图的知识道德论和亚里士多德的目的论的“行动伦理学”的内在区别和联系,从而使我们更深刻地理解亚里士多德的善与德性概念的含义。     

The Earthy Realism of Plato's Metaphysics,or: What Shall We Do with Iris Murdoch?

I develop Iris Murdoch's argument that “there is no Platonic ‘elsewhere,’ similar to the Christian ‘elsewhere.’ ” Thus: Iris Murdoch is against the Separation of the Forms not as a correction of Plato but in order to keep faith with him; Plato's Parmenides is not a source book of accurately targeted self‐refutation but a catalogue of student errors; the testimony of Aristotle and Gilbert Ryle about Plato's motivations in the Theory of Forms is not an indubitable foundation from which to denounce Iris Murdoch's treatment of Plato as inaccurate but a rival reading of dubious charity. If Iris Murdoch's version of the Theory of Forms strikes Newton Garver as an incoherent mix of influences from Wittgenstein and Plato, this is not because Iris Murdoch is herself confused, but because in important respects the orthodoxy has Plato wrong.     

The myth of the Jewish origins of philosophy in the Renaissance: from Aristotle to Plato

The myth of the Jewish origins of philosophy and science is an ancient tradition dating from the Hellenistic period. It originated with pagan scholars, as part of the Greek-Hellenistic myth of the eastern origins of wisdom. Hellenistic-Jewish scholars acquired this theme from them, developed it further and transmitted it to the Church Fathers. In time, this myth achieved great popularity among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Aristotle’s prominence in medieval culture gave rise to traditions claiming that he studied with Jewish sages and was deeply impressed and influenced by Jewish books. Some of these traditions even maintain that he converted to Judaism, or was born a Jew. Although stories about the Judaized Aristotle continued to circulate, many accounts of the Jewish sources of Plato also began to appear in various forms among Christian and Jewish scholars. Stories about Plato proliferated especially following the decline of the Aristotelian-Averroist tradition, when kabbalistic-hermetic influences were first discernible in the writings of Ficino and Pico della Mirandola in the late Quattrocento.