《周易》形上思想研究

贞,从哲学来看,是一种善恶价值判断.它是对选择某项原则的赞叹与呼吁.它是主体的私意的表达.同时,这样的观点的接受意味着价值观的确立.价值观内化为主体的德性,成为人们行为的出发点,即元.价值判断的对象是对事实陈述的选择,如利.这些对象最终落实为知识形态.知识是一种相对确定的陈述.它无法表达存在的真正,即本体.知识所陈述的对象是事物的亨,即现象.现象是外在的生与主体的思的共同造作.在造作过程中,主体赋予事物以时空性.因此现象不真.事物的本体是生、思,即元.元展开为德性与生生不息.对于本体,人们保持沉默.元是无.不过,我们可以通过德行等把握它.     

《老子》形而上学研究

善是道德价值。它是私意的表达。因此,《老子》认为,善恶是非不分,需要破除。言即知识,是对事实的陈述。它有所限定,即局限性,彼此有别,因此也要放弃。有即万物。有具有主体性。有即现象,为假,不是事物的本来。事物的本来即道。作为本来的道,即本、即生。作为本的道是某种可能性,故不可说。作为生的道,未能成形,故不可说。道不可道。假的有、巧的真、善的名都遮蔽了道：事物的本来。故需要反,即还原。     

对亚里士多德幸福观的当代反思

研究怎样的生活是好生活是古代伦理学的核心问题。在亚里士多德那里,幸福被认为是人生的终极目的,是最高的善。因此研究什么是幸福,研究如何获得幸福就是亚里士多德伦理学的首要问题。亚里士多德对幸福的论证,可分为目的性论证和功能性论证,其中存在个体、社群、人类共性的本质三重维度。     

基因提升、实践和美德

基因提升这项新兴的基因干预技术存在潜在的危险。把人的基本功能提升到正常水平之上的技术可能会妨碍某些关键的内在善的发展,这些内在善对人类幸福来说是必要的,而且是只能通过参与某些具体的实践才能够培养起来的。     

人的双重有限性与至善的概念北大核心

康德在至善的概念中引入幸福,引发了诸多质疑。在康德的伦理学中,人既具有理性的有限性,又具有存在的有限性。这两种有限性有密切的联系,导致康德的伦理学存在着张力。将幸福引入至善的概念中,正是康德重视人的存在的有限性的体现。然而,这也使得康德在一些论述中让人们以为他违背了意志自律的基本原则。实际上,促进至善的义务在客观上并没有增加新的义务,只是在主观上添加了道德的人具有获得幸福的资格与希望。康德在后期可能试图消除人们的误解,在人的双重有限性的张力中,他更突出人的理性的有限性,因为它才是其构建道德的纯粹性的着眼点。     

为属人的幸福而运思——浅析亚里士多德的幸福观

亚里士多德伦理学研究的主要对象是人的幸福.属人的幸福是现实的人在现实的生活中可实现的最高善,即灵魂的合德性的实现活动.灵魂的德性分为理智德性和道德德性,理智德性又包括实践的理智和沉思的理智.以合于沉思的理智的实现活动为目的的生活是沉思的生活,以合于其他德性的实现活动为目的的生活是政治的生活.沉思的生活是最幸福的生活,但它是属神的生活,不是属人的生活,人只能以其神性的部分来过这种生活.政治的生活是第二好的生活,并且它是属人的生活.沉思的生活值得我们追求,但现实中只有部分人能够实现;政治的生活带来的是属人的幸福,它与城邦的善联系在一起.此外,即使一个人过着沉思的生活,也同样需要拥有明智的品质,做符合道德的行为.     

科技伦理:真与善的价值融合

科技伦理最重要的特征 ,是真与善的价值融合。在科技伦理中 ,善以真为依托 ,真以善为归宿。科技伦理不是以善伤真 ,而是以善导真 ;不是否定或抹杀真的价值 ,而是在承认真的价值的基础上 ,将其引向善的目标。科技伦理虽然并非科学技术自身所固有 ,它是科学技术外部的一种控制手段 ,但科技伦理却可以通过内化于科技工作者的途径 ,成为科学技术活动中的一种内在力量     

认知后果论的批判与重构

认知后果论是当代主流的认知规范性理论,主张以真为最终价值,并以此评价一切认知状态及认知过程。然而,它存在一个两难困境:假定任何真信念都具有最终价值,显然不符合现实,因为现实世界中存在许多微不足道的真信念;然而,如果我们对这个前提作出限定而排除这些信念,那么它就不能解释所有真信念,导致理论不完备。为了避免这一两难,笔者提出一种认知自然主义:一方面,认知自然主义通过否定真信念具有最终价值而避免了上述两难,指出真信念的价值取决于人类善,即人类的自然历史事实之描述;另一方面,通过为真提供一种客观的外在价值解释而保留了认知后果论的优点,从而能够合理地解释认知确证与真之间的紧密关系。     

论儒家真善美理想之特色

“真”的原则.“善”的原则、“美”的原则是人类活动的当然之则.人类整个实践活动都是遵循这三大原则的.凡是美好的理想,必是真、善、美的统一,儒家理想也是如此.无论是“天下大同”的社会理想,还是以“圣贤”为中心的人格理想,它们都包含着这三个基本要素.所谓“真”,即它来源于现实,反映了客观规律提供的现实可能性,体现了世界的本来面目和当然法则;所谓“善”,它反映了人的要求、目的,符合人的利益需要,实现人的价值追求;所谓“美”,它是人们一种美好愿望,是在现实的基础上发挥想象力构想的一个蓝图,在人的思想和行动中协调合规律性和合目的性的关系,达到一种融洽与和谐,而为主体带来情感的愉悦.与真、善、美三种要素相对应的就是人们的认识、行为和情感,或是理智、意识和感受.对真、善、美统一的理想追求,也就是儒家在精神生活上对求真、向善、爱美理想的追求和实现.用儒家的话来说,就是“天人合一”、“知行合一”、“情景合一”.     

“中国好人”之“好”析辨

"中国好人"的评议和推广活动时至今日,需要研究和说明"中国好人"之"好"的实质内涵。"好人"之"好"的标准应是"真"、"善"、"美"的有机统一。其间,"真"是"好"的前提条件,"善"是"好"的价值所在,"美"是"好"的社会期待。跟进"中国好人"的评议活动开展相关理论研究,是十分必要的。     

Are the Russians as Unhappy as they say they are?

Since the 1980s, several polls in Russia have included questions about happiness. The responses to these questions were quite similar. Average happiness was low in comparison to other nations and declined over time. Ten years after the fall of communism Russians are less happy than during the communist period.There are doubts about the validity of these self-reports. One source of doubt is that these data may not reflect Russians' self-appraisals adequately, due to distortions in translation and a differential response bias. A second misgiving is that true discontent could be rather superficial, and be largely due to unfavorable comparison with the West and folklore of negativism.These qualms are checked in this article. It appears that the Russians are as unhappy as they say they are, and that they have good reasons to be so. The current unhappiness is not due to the Russian national character, but has more to do with the troublesome transitions taking place in Russian society.     

论至善对康德批判哲学的定向作用

至善学说在康德批判哲学中的地位和作用经常遭到研究者的忽视或误解。事实上,至善作为幸福与德性、自然与自由、理论与实践以及感性世界与理智世界的综合统一,对康德伦理学、认识论、历史观和宗教学说中都具有重要的范导意义。至善不但体现了康德批判哲学的最终目的,而且对批判哲学体系的最终建立具有定向作用。     

Healthy happiness: effects of happiness on physical health and the consequences for preventive health care

Is happiness good for your health? This common notion is tested in a synthetic analysis of 30 follow-up studies on happiness and longevity. It appears that happiness does not predict longevity in sick populations, but that it does predict longevity among healthy populations So, happiness does not cure illness but it does protect against becoming ill. The effect of happiness on longevity in healthy populations is remarkably strong. The size of the effect is comparable to that of smoking or not.If so, public health can also be promoted by policies that aim at greater happiness of a greater number. That can be done by strengthening individual life-abilities and by improving the livability of the social environment. Some policies are proposed. Both ways of promoting health through happiness require more research on conditions for happiness.     

Ignoring Easterlin: Why Easterlin’s Correlation Findings Need Not Matter to Public Policy

Many believe that the lack of correlation between happiness and income, first discovered by Richard Easterlin in 1974, entails the conclusion that well-being policies should be made based on happiness measures, rather than income measures. I argue that distinguishing between how well-being is characterized and how that characterization is measured introduces ways of denying the conclusion that policies should be made based on happiness measures. It is possible to avoid the conclusion either by denying that well-being hedonism is true or by denying that happiness measures are a better way of operationalizing hedonism than income measures are. By making these possibilities explicit, we find that less hinges on whether income and happiness are correlated than is often thought.     

Seeking Perfection: A Kantian Look at Human Genetic Engineering

It is tempting to argue that Kantian moral philosophy justifies prohibiting both human germ-line genetic engineering and non-therapeutic genetic engineering because they fail to respect human dignity. There are, however, good reasons for resisting this temptation. In fact, Kant’s moral philosophy provides reasons that support genetic engineering—even germ-line and non-therapeutic. This is true of Kant’s imperfect duties to seek one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. It is also true of the categorical imperative. Kant’s moral philosophy does, however, provide limits to justifiable genetic engineering.     

Aversion to Happiness Across Cultures: A Review of Where and Why People are Averse to Happiness

A common view in contemporary Western culture is that personal happiness is one of the most important values in life. For example, in American culture it is believed that failing to appear happy is cause for concern. These cultural notions are also echoed in contemporary Western psychology (including positive psychology and much of the research on subjective well-being). However, some important (often culturally-based) facts about happiness have tended to be overlooked in the psychological research on the topic. One of these cultural phenomena is that, for some individuals, happiness is not a supreme value. In fact, some individuals across cultures are averse to various kinds of happiness for several different reasons. This article presents the first review of the concept of aversion to happiness. Implications of the outcomes are discussed, as are directions for further research.     

Happiness,Rationality, Autonomy and the Good Life

The paper starts with a general discussion of the concepts of happiness and the good life. I argue that there is a conceptual core of happiness which has to do with one’s life as a whole. I discuss affective and attitude or life satisfaction views of happiness and indicate problems faced by those views. I introduce my own view, the life plan view, which sees happiness as the ongoing realizing of global desires of the person. I argue that on such a view one’s life could be happy without a high level of rationality or a high level of autonomy; such rationality and autonomy are not built into the concept of happiness. So while happiness is a final value, and good for the person, it is not the only final value. Rationality and autonomy are also final values and, where they exist, are good as ends for the person, part of the good life.     

"好人"如何一生平安?——走出"德福悖论"的怪圈

德福悖论现象一直是道德生活中所面,临的重大问题之一,为历代思想家所关注。在市场经济时代,“好人”虽不再是一个不言“利”的主体,但他能否“一生平安”,德福之间能否统一,关键在于“好人”是否处于一个“有道”或公正的社会制度里。     

Greater Happiness for a Greater Number: Some Non-controversial Options for Governments

There are dramatic differences in average happiness across nations ranging from 3.24 in Togo to 8.00 in Denmark on a 0–10-points scale. These differences are an indication that collective conditions in nations are important for happiness. Can governments play a role in the creation of such conditions? This question is addressed in an analysis of average happiness in 131 nations in 2006. The following sub-questions are considered. (1) Is there a positive correlation between average happiness in nations and the quality or the size of governments? (2) Can we explain a positive correlation in terms of causality? (3) Can we specify causality by discerning direct and indirect effects? (4) What about governments and inequality in happiness? (5) What can governments do to increase happiness intentionally? The conclusion is that the technical quality of governments is an important cause for average happiness in nations, and this causality can be specified to some extent. Good governments also reduce inequality of happiness in nations eventually. The implication is that governments can increase average happiness, and in due time reduce inequality in happiness, and that they have some non-controversial options to do so on purpose.     

Happiness in the Garden of Epicurus

Epicurus was a philosopher who lived in Greece in the 3rd century B.C. Like his contemporaries, he was much concerned with the question of how to live a good life. In his view the Chief Good is to decrease pain and increase pleasure. Though Epicurus is reputed for advocating the pursuit of refined sensorial pleasures, he recognized the need for deferring gratification or enduring pain. He advised his followers to lead a modest and contemplative life in friendly communities. His advice can be characterized as ‘serene hedonism’. This paper explains that position and considers its applicability for the present day. It concludes that Epicureanism was quite accurate in describing the conditions of happiness and that he offered valuable guidelines in dealing with hardship and difficult emotional content. His ideas that happiness is the same as the absence of pain and that one should withdraw from society are less fortunate. It made him assume that happiness automatically follows if one is in the right state of mind, and that there is no need to actively seek interaction with the environment for the betterment of the circumstances of life. However, Epicurus’ advice might have been a good option for his contemporaries given the societal turmoil in his times.