论市场经济与道德对立统一的条件性

本文对市场经济与道德的对立和统一两种情况及其条件进行了分析 ,指出二者的对立和统一是有条件的。我们既不能因二者的矛盾性而完全否认道德在经济活动中的积极作用 ,也不能因二者的统一性而抹杀经济活动自身的特点和规律。     

模糊思维与医疗实践

模糊思维与医疗实践第三军医大学博士生（重庆４０００３８）王锦波精确与模糊是客观世界存在的两种状态,二者互相对立,互相依存,并在一定条件下可以互相转化。医疗实践是人们认识客观世界,认识人类本质的一种实践活动,在这个实践活动中,也充满着精确与模糊的对立统...     

自由与实践认识

一、自由是在认识与实践过程中主观与客观的统一 自由根源于实践认识。自由是符合必然和主观目的之实践认识及其主体感受的统一体。或者说,自由是在实践认识过程中主观和客观的统一。实践认识是具体的、历史的,决定了主观与客观统一的具体性、历史性。它们一起决定了自由的具体性、历史性。 实践认识是主客观统一的表现形式。它具体地表现在四个方面: 第一,在认识过程中,主客观统一表现为符合目的的认知目的性活动,是认知目的性活动(主观)与认知必然过程(客观)的统一。认知目的性活动是有目的之认知活动,是一种特殊的实践活动,认知必然过程是一种特殊的实践过程。     

经济哲学视域下真理与德性的和谐

真理与德性的统一是合规律性与合目的性的统一,真理与德性的和谐主要体现为:二者都体现人类追求的实践的一种内在的满足和快乐,是人类的一种自我实现、自我确证和自我完善;二者的统一是实践活动的内在要求;在现实生活中,人类的实践活动需要真理与德性的指导。实现真理与德性的和谐需要从加强教育、践行法治、健全制度、发展生产力与科技等方面着手。     

社会规律的规定性

社会规律的规定性刘福森要正确规定社会规律,必须对下面三个问题做出正确解释;（一）社会规律是人的活动的本质关系与社会规律是社会的本质关系,这两种提法应是统一的。因为社会本来就是人的社会总体活动。但在讨论中却发生了分歧。因为他们的出发点不同。强调社会规律是社会的本质关系者,意在强调社会同人的活动的区别,强调社会的客体性和客观性,把社会看成是在人的主体活动之外的自在客体,排除社会过程的主体性,从而把社会同人的活动、社会客体和主体绝对对立起来,否认了二者的统一。而强调社会规律是人的活动的本质关系的论者,则意在强调社会历史的主体性。但有些论者没有看到社会中人的活动与社会、主体与客体的统一是矛盾的统一,从而把社会同一般意义上的活动、实践等同起来。其实,历史观讲的实践是个体实践相互作用所产生社会总体实践和“改造前人实践的实践。”前者从横的方面反映了实践的社会性,与之相对应的是恩格斯的“合力论”;后者从纵的方面反映了实践的历史性,与之相对应的是马克思的“历史制约性”的观点。（二）规律与趋势的关系。二者是相联系的一个概念,但并不等同。趋势是规律的属性,是一种可能的趋向和态势。趋势也是规律在事物运动中的表现,在这个意义上,趋势     

经济价值与道德价值如何具有统一性?

解决经济活动中经济价值与道德价值的冲突,谋求两者的和谐与协调之途,是经济伦理学的基本任务.人的生存方式与活动方式、经济活动的主观目的性和无限性与经济资源的客观制约性和有限性的矛盾性,是经济价值与道德价值对立的历史根源;经济学与伦理学的分离则是其认识论根源.这种对立在市场经济条件下表现得最为尖锐、紧张.而现代市场经济的发展和经济伦理学的繁荣则要求经济主体必须谋求两者的有机统一.两者统一、整合而形成一种基本的经济伦理:"考虑整体的经济价值",即经济价值的创造行为要有兼顾道德价值的创造行为,经济决策要有兼顾他人和社会的需求和顾虑.在解决两者的冲突、保持和谐与合作方面,它是一种合适的经济伦理.     

心理学的整合理论

1　心理学不统一或分裂的原因　　一是笛卡尔二元对立思维模式的影响。这种二元论将学术理论观点分为客观与主观以及质化与量化等等。这样对立的区分模式在心理学中已成为一种思维和研究定势 ;二是心理学领域中存在科学文化与人文文化的对立。金布尔发现心理学中存在五个与之相关的对立范畴。沃特森则认为有 18个 ,黑特认为有 12个。我国的研究者指出这些对立还表现在自然科学模式对人文科学模式和价值中立对价值负荷说等方面的对立。表层研究与深层研究的对立以及自下而上与自上而下研究等方面的对立 ;三是方法论的对立。实证主义和现象学…     

辩证法与本体论的双重转换——马克思辩证法理论的本体论变革意蕴

马克思哲学的本体论的变革与其辩证法的变革是同一问题不可分割的两个方面。在哲学史上,黑格尔曾试图通过辩证法与本体论的内在统一改造和重构形而上学本体论。与黑格尔的"辩证本体论"不同,马克思哲学的实践观点把人对自然的"依赖性"和"超越性"、人类活动的"感性对象性"和"理性能动性"等两极对立的矛盾关系在实践活动中否定性地统一起来,使对人而言的"现实世界"具有了真正辩证的本性。以禀赋辩证本性的现实世界为基础,马克思对黑格尔"辩证本体论"的理论前提进行了深入的批判性反思,在为辩证法确立了真实的本体论根基的同时,也实现了哲学本体论真正的辩证变革,从而实现了辩证法与本体论的双重转换。这是马克思哲学重要的理论贡献。     

实践主体的思维方式与实践活动的运行

实践作为人变革、改造客体的自觉活动,必定伴随着人的思维、认识活动。在现实的实践活动中,变革客体的物质活动与实践活动主体的思维、认识活动总是统一于同一过程的。实践主体的思维、认识活动决不可能游离于实践活动之外。相反,实践活动正是在主体的思维方式的指导下展开、进行的。实践活动运行的方向、方式、过程及结果,一方面固然受制于实践客体的结构、属性、特点等因素,但在很大程度上,则受着主体思维方式的支配、控制和调节。所谓思维方式就是主体观念地把握客体的相对稳定的定型化的思维样式。从功能上讲,思维方式是实践主体认识客体的观念出发点,是主体把握客体的内在尺度。从结构上讲,它包括经验、知识、价值观念、情感、意志等因素。这些因素交织、统一在一起,对实践活动起着重要的导向、控制和调节作用。实践活动从其展开的程序上讲,包括以下三个环节,即确立实践目的和实践方案的决策活动、实施实践方案的执行一操作活动和对实践结果的评价     

论马克思主义的实践生产力观

一、实践思维方式与实践的生产力观实践思维方式是马克思主义哲学的根本特征,它使马克思在生产力理论研究中创立了独树一帜的实践的生产力观。马克思指出:“我们看到,理论的对立本身的解决,只有通过实践方式,只有借助于人的实践力量,才是可能的,因此这种对立的解决不只是认识的任务,而是一个现实生活的任务。”(马克思,第54页)也就是说,马克思研究生产力的出发点是从事实践活动的人,生产力不过是追求着自己的目的的人的活动能力。人的第一个历史活动就是要维持自己的生活、创造自己的历史。从事物质和精神生产活动,既是主体与客体之间的物质…     

Modelling Beyond Application: Epistemic and Non-epistemic Values in Modern Science

In recent years, philosophers of science have begun to realize that the clear separation of the creation of models in academia and the application of models outside science is not possible. When these philosophers address hybrid contexts in which science is entwined with policy, business, and other realms of society, these often practically oriented realms no longer represent ‘the surroundings’ of science but rather are considered an essential part of it. I argue—and demonstrate empirically—that the judgement of a theory or model conducted by scientists in such hybrid contexts may contain two parts: one is truth supportive and the other is utility oriented. In relation to the debate on science and values, the article seeks to reinforce the argument in modern philosophy of science that the boundaries between epistemic and non-epistemic values are blurred. The article stresses that non-epistemic values may be also understood as values that contribute to the instrumental success of a theory or model and—in this way—influence scientific practice in the hybrid contexts.     

The perception and identification of mirror-reversed patterns

Many species have difficulty in discriminating between mirror-image stimuli, especially those about a vertical axis, and when identificatory rather than purely perceptual processes are involved. Various theories are reviewed. In two experiments involving same-different judgments for pairs of stimuli, triangles or semicircles, these were simultaneously presented either unilaterally or bilaterally, and in mirror or aligned orientations with respect to each other. Mirror oriented stimuli presented to opposite cerebral hemispheres were no more readily matched than those possessing the same orientations (aligned), thus suggesting that at the perceptual level there is no interaction between mirror-corresponding points in the two visual cortices. Foreknowledge of stimulus orientations failed differentially to affect the findings. Two other studies were performed involving manual identification of single letters, correct or mirror oriented, in either visual field. Here, for most subjects, mirror reversal proved either less disruptive or even advantageous when in the visual field which is normally inferior with correctly oriented material. It was concluded that mirror-image confusion at the level of memory is almost certainly a consequence of reversed coding, in some form, in the opposite sides of the brain. A number of incidental findings were made with respect to visual field effects.     

An orientation anisotropy in induced brightness

It is shown that an orientation anisotropy exists for the magnitude of induced brightness in a cruciform stimulus consisting of a grey test patch positioned at the intersection of two inducing bars, one black and one white, oriented at right angles to each other. When the cruciform was oriented such that the white bar was horizontal, the grey patch appeared darker than when the same cruciform was oriented such that the white bar was vertical. The contribution of the black and white inducing bars towards the brightness of the test patch was investigated. A simple mathematical function, which took into account both the contribution of the two component inducing bars and the orientation anisotropy, was fitted to the data. No consistent orientation anisotropy was found with inducing stimuli at oblique orientations.     

Volunteer work in youth organizations: predicting distinct aspects of volunteering behavior from self‐ and other‐oriented motives

This study examined the impact of motivational underpinnings of volunteerism on self‐reported volunteer behaviors and satisfaction. Data from 153 volunteers in youth organizations supported a two‐dimensional structure of self‐ and other‐oriented motives. Self‐oriented motives were more important in explaining in‐role volunteer behavior, while other‐oriented concerns were also important in predicting extra‐role volunteer behavior and satisfaction. These findings are discussed in the context of a functional approach to volunteerism and linked to recent findings regarding the role of self‐ and other‐oriented motives from the organizational literature. Suggestions for recruiting and motivating young volunteers in youth development organizations are presented.     

Numerical and verbal decision analysis: comparison on practical cases

Numerical decision analysis (NDA), derived from statistical decision theory, is very well known. Verbal decision analysis (VDA), oriented towards so‐called unstructured problems, where the qualitative and uncertain factors dominate, is a newer direction in decision theory and practice. Verbal and numerical decision analyses (DAs) have been compared in an experimental setting, with groups of students. This paper presents the results of a comparison in the context of live practical tasks. Both approaches were attempted on two comparable choices, facing both Russian and US government agencies, involving a choice between oil and gas transportation options. The resulting methodological insights are generalized into a systematic comparison of the strong and weak features of each approach. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Contextual Interference in Motor Learning: Dissociated Effects Due to the Nature of Task Variations

The contextual interference effect in motor learning refers to the interference that results from practising a task within the concept of other tasks in a practice session. Several studies have shown that practice under conditions of high contextual interference (i.e. with a random practice order) degrades performance during acquisition trials, compared to low contextual interference conditions (i.e. with a blocked order, where practice is completed on one task before practice on another task is undertaken). In contrast to acquisition performance, random practice usually leads to more effective learning than blocked practice, as measured by retention and transfer tests. One of the hypotheses regarding the effect suggests that a random practice schedule induces more extensive planning operations during practice than a blocked practice condition. If so, then differences between these two conditions should emerge to the degree that the set of tasks requires complete reconstruction of these planning operations on each trial. To address this issue, we compared four groups of subjects: a blocked and random group that practised three timing tasks that shared a common characteristic (same relative timing), and a blocked and random group that practised three tasks that each had different relative timing structures. Subjects practised these tasks on each of two days, with a retention test and two transfer tests that required either a relative timing structure that had been practised previously or had not previously been practised. No random/ blocked differences occurred regardless of the relative timing of the patterns during acquisition or retention. However, for both transfer tests, random practice enhanced learning only for the group that had practised with tasks that each had different relative timing during acquisition. Implications of these results for an explanation of contextual interference are discussed.     

Interaktionelle Methode und übertragungsfokussierte Psychotherapie

The psychoanalytic interactional therapy proposed by Heigl-Evers and the transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP) suggested by Kernberg are two established methods for the treatment of patients with personality disorders in general, and especially of Borderline patiens. These approaches are often compared with each other due to several important similarities we may consider as specific for those disorders. They include among others the active involvement of the therapist, the use of clarifications and confrontations, a greater attention to the setting of the treatment, and the working in the “here and now.” According to current literature, a more exact analysis of the two procedures and of their development as well as of their implicit metatheories reveal that in spite of the recent rapprochement of interactional therapy to psychoanalysis there are still important theoretical and technical differences between these two treatment methods. This observation is demonstrated here by some typical examples of the particular interventions though without discussing a possible differential effectivity of the two methods. Basically, the two treatments are not fully comparable, because the interactional therapy was developed for groups and TFP was designed for the individual setting. In the final analysis, the “answer” principle of the interpersonal, partly on the neo-psychoanalysis and ego-psychology oriented interactional therapy and the “interpretation” principle of the on object-psychology oriented TFP cannot be considered equivalent. Beside that interactional therapy may bear more risks for becoming pedagogical as TFP does.     

Two methods of reducing overconfidence

Prior research has suggested that most people are seriously overconfident in their answers to general knowledge questions. We attempted to reduce over-confidence in each of two separate experiments. In Experiment 1 half of the subjects answered five practice questions which appeared to be difficult. The remaining subjects answered practice problems which appeared to be easy but were actually just as difficult as the other group's practice questions. Within each of these two groups, half of the subjects received feedback on the accuracy of their answers to the practice questions, while the other half received no feedback. All four groups then answered 30 additional questions and indicated their confidence in these answers. The group which had received five apparently “easy” practice questions and then had been given feedback on the accuracy of their answers was underconfident on the final 30 questions. In Experiment 2 subjects who anticipated a group discussion of their answers to general knowledge questions took longer to answer the questions and expressed less overconfidence in their answers than did a control group.     

‘You're the doctor,Doctor!’: is social constructionism a helpful stance in general practice consultations?

This paper considers the advantages and limitations of using a social constructionist stance in general practice, and is illustrated with two case examples. An approach is suggested for clinical practice using social constructionism and biomedical knowledge dialectically, each as a commentary on the limitations of the other.