生产与交往——或马克思与哈贝马斯

在今天这个已变得如此狭小的世界上,我们所面临的全球性问题,尤其是核灾难对人类的威胁,要求在各民族之间建立起一种理性的共存格局。从现实主义角度来看,用理性来协调人们的行为举止,不是由于其自身,而是由于明显的物质方面的生存危机,今天具有前所未见的发展机遇。最迟自十八世纪启蒙运动开始,科学已经被看作是最佳的理性     

科学的统一

1.分类与系统论自有了科学以来,自有了欧洲哲学以来,人们就梦想着科学的统一,梦想着能有一个统一的科学体系。即使在科学哲学创立之前,希腊人的思想就发展到了这一步,即认为甚至科学和哲学也能构成一种哲学的统一。这种观点的影响早已烟消云散了。今天,在这种观点一度占支配地位的那些领域中,我们不断发现了一些未曾阐述清楚的经验关系和系统关系。我们不再讨论科学(与或不与哲学)的统一,而是讨论学科性、多学科性和学科间性,抚昔追今,我们所探讨的知识秩序已不再能用知识本     

罗素与实用主义者

罗素与他曾遇见过的,并就哲学问题进行过交流的好几位实用主义哲学家相互影响。这些相互影响同罗素与他的朋友和合作者如摩尔、怀特海、维特根斯坦等之间的相互影响性质不同。这是一种敌对的性质。事实上罗素与唯心主义者的相互影响也是如此。不同的地方只在于罗素本人曾经历新黑格尔主义这一阶段。至于就实用主义来说,罗素自始至终把它作为对手,实用主义者的主张对他来说是不相容的。尽管罗素自己思想发展过程中在这一点上没有改变过,但是,正如我们将看到的,他思想上的变化使他比他自己承认的更接近这些实用主义的观点。1896年,罗素在他第一次访问美国时结识了詹姆斯和皮尔斯。后来罗素又从W.维尔比(Welb     

创造性思维与创造力培养的概念

创造性思维是适应性思维或称重新概念化。其绝大部分不是外显行为,而是内隐的认知。我们日常大部分认知和行为是自动化的。它们满足着我们的日常需要。而满足我们需要的方式有一定导向,甚至变得刻板严格。在我们日常生活的所有方面,象饮食社交、宗教艺术、学术训练等等,我们都发展了动作的、自动化的认知和行为来满足基本的需要。我们去餐馆吃饭来满足饥饿的需要,与亲属的社会交往在家庭团聚中已经仪式化,我们的医生每月     

系统属性的产生问题

《哲学问题》1992年第2期上刊登了C.и.雅科夫连柯一篇内容丰富的文章《论自然界中的组织作用和破坏(随机的)作用,该期还登载了B.и.阿尔申诺夫和я.и.斯维尔斯基的文章《从涵义的读出到涵义的产生》。按照编辑部的意图,后一篇文章大概是前一篇文章的评论。但我以为,这篇文章并没有起到多大的评论作用,因为这篇论涵义的有趣     

人对动物有道德义务吗?

自从10年以前彼得·辛格的《动物解放》一书出版以来,在英国人的书籍中便对动物的道德处境的问题展开了激烈的讨论,在这期间,这个问题也在我们国家引起了较大的重视。从历史上看,这种关心无疑是对于自然的新意识的结果,而这种对于自然的新意识又是由于那些不能再忽视的生态问题产生的。可是按照事情的性质,我们这里所谈的与两个不同的问题有关。适当同自然环境打交道的问题是个我们共同的切身利益的问题,不是一种“生态     

Temporal regularity of tapping by the left and right hands in timed and untimed finger tapping

The temporal characteristics of repetitive finger tapping by the left and right hands were examined in two experiments. In the first experiment, interresponse intervals (IRIs) were recorded while right-handed male subjects tapped in synchrony with an auditory timing pulse (the synchronization phase) and then attempted to maintain the same tapping rate without the timing pulses (the continuation phase). The left and right hands performed separately, at four different rates (interpulse intervals of 250, 500, 750, and 1500 ms). There was no asymmetry of the asynchronies of the timing pulses and the associated responses in the synchronization phase or of the IRIs in either phase, but there was an asymmetry of chronization phase or of the IRIs in either phase, but there was an asymmetry in the temporal dispersion of the responses in both phases. in the second experiment, right-handed males tapped separately with each hand at three different speeds: as quickly as possible, at a fast but steady rate, and at a slow rhythmical rate. The speed asymmetry present when tapping as quickly as possible (with the preferred hand tapping more quickly ) was reduced when tapping at the fast steady rate and was absent when tapping at the slow rhythmical rate. The temporal dispersion of the IRIs produced by the nonpreferred hand was greater than the temporal dispersion of those produced by the preferred hand in all speed conditions. These results show smaller temporal dispersion of tapping by the preferred hand in right-handed males under different conditions, including submaximal speeds at which both hands respond at the same rate. This suggests that the motor system controlling the preferred hand in right-handers had more precise timing of response output than that controlling the nonpreferred hand.     

Harming future people

Hanser examines Derek Parfit's contention in his treatise on rationalism, Reasons and Persons (Oxford University Press; 1984) that acts that are not reproductive in nature can nonetheless predictably affect the identities of future people, and that this fact has unexpected and important consequences for ethical theory. Hanser argues tht this fact is not as significant as Parfit believes it to be. The arguments of both scholars concern the morality of choices that, while causing future persons to be badly off, do not make them worse off than they would have been if the choices had not been made. Hanser concludes his essay with a discussion of responsibility for acts that will affect the health of future offspring.     

Natural ways are better: Adolescents and the ‘anti-obesity’ gene

Empirical research with young people in Finland, Germany, Spain and Britain was carried out as part of the BIOCULT project funded by the European Union. The project focused on their attitudes to biotechnology and, in particular, the formation of arguments about risk and safety. This paper looks at the responses of 14–18 year olds to a story about the so called anti-obesity gene, in the form of advice to a friend who is taking it. The majority advised against taking it with some differences by gender and country. Most reservations were on grounds of safety and the feeling that ‘natural’ ways to lose weight are better: A minority questioned the idea of striving for a ‘perfect’ body. The types of arguments used by the young people reveal underlying perspectives on the place of human beings in the world and whether they have a right to manipulate nature and their own bodies. Marie Levitt is a sociologist with research interests in attitudes and values in relation to biotechnology, health and religion.