The phenomenological ontology of literature

Literary ontology is essentially a phenomenological issue rather than one of epistemology, sociology, or psychology. It is a theory of the phenomenological essence intuited from a sense of beauty, based on the phenomenological ontology of beauty, which puts into “brackets” the sociohistorical premises and material conditions of aesthetic phenomena. Beauty is the “objectified” emotion. This is the phenomenological definition of the essence of beauty, which manifests itself on three levels, namely “emotion qua selfconsciousness,” “sense of beauty qua emotion,” and “sentiment qua sense of beauty.” Art on the other hand is the “objectification of emotion” whose most general and closest manner to “humanity” is literature and poetry. Poetry is the origin of language and the linguistic essence is a metaphor. Language as “the house of being” is both “thinking” and “poetry.” Literature expresses the essence of art in the most direct way and, in traditional Chinese aesthetic terminology, literature is the “language of emotion” conveyed by the writer based on his own emotion towards the “language of scene.”     

论以理杀人

以理杀人是指打着正义旗号对他人强加暴力,其发生的可能条件是理具有公共性,即理的正义性是施事者与应事者双方共同认可的,并且理是应事者尚未达到的行为标准。借助理的公共性,施事者在以理杀人时常常宣称对应事者怀有善意,但由于特定目的与特定手段之间并无确定关系,施事目的不能被应事者确知,不能成为双方的公共对象,所以,所谓善意并不能为以理杀人提供正义支持,应事者只需根据自己的意愿决定是否接受施事者的目的或手段。     

父母冲突与大学生宿舍冲突方式的关系:自我分化的中介作用

采用分层整群抽样的方法从北京四所不同类型大学选取1023名大一至大四的学生进行问卷调查,以探讨大学生感知到的父母冲突对其宿舍冲突方式的影响,以及大学生的自我分化在其中的中介作用。通过SPSS19.0和AMOS 17.0软件进行方差分析、相关分析和结构方程模型分析,结果表明:(1)总体来说,大学生最常见的宿舍冲突方式是合作,其次是顺从、回避,最少见的是竞争,而且男生采用竞争宿舍冲突方式的频率显著高于女生;(2)大学生感知到的父母冲突与其自我分化水平呈显著负相关,与消极的宿舍冲突方式(顺从、回避和竞争)呈显著正相关,但与积极的宿舍冲突方式(合作)相关不显著;(3)大学生自我分化水平与消极的宿舍冲突方式(顺从、回避和竞争)呈显著负相关,但只有其中两个维度(情绪反应和自我位置)与积极的宿舍冲突方式(合作)呈显著正相关;(4)大学生的自我分化在父母冲突与消极宿舍冲突方式的关系中起中介作用,并且中介模式存在性别差异:自我分化在父母冲突与女生消极宿舍冲突的关系中起完全中介作用,但在父母冲突与男生消极宿舍冲突的关系中起部分中介作用。     

FINE'S MCTAGGART,TEMPORAL PASSAGE,AND THE A VERSUS B‐DEBATE

I offer an interpretation and a partial defense of Kit Fine's ‘Argument from Passage’, which is situated within his reconstruction of McTaggart's paradox. Fine argues that existing A‐theoretic approaches to passage are no more dynamic, i.e. capture passage no better, than the B‐theory. I argue that this comparative claim is correct. Our intuitive picture of passage, which inclines us towards A‐theories, suggests more than coherent A‐theories can deliver. In Finean terms, the picture requires not only Realism about tensed facts, but also Neutrality, i.e. the tensed facts not being ‘oriented towards’ one privileged time. However unlike Fine, and unlike others who advance McTaggartian arguments, I take McTaggart's paradox to indicate neither the need for a more dynamic theory of passage nor that time does not pass. A more dynamic theory is not to be had: Fine's ‘non‐standard realism’ amounts to no more than a conceptual gesture. But instead of concluding that time does not pass, we should conclude that theories of passage cannot deliver the dynamicity of our intuitive picture. For this reason, a B‐theoretic account of passage that simply identifies passage with the succession of times is a serious contender.     

早期佛教的业报轮回与无我

佛教的"业报轮回"与"无我"是否矛盾历来有争议.本文从早期佛教思想内部及佛教产生的印度历史文化背景两方面论述了"业报轮回"与"无我"的关系.     

论老庄的“重生”思想

在老庄的人生哲学中,生命有三种存在形式：生命的物质存在、生命的社会存在和生命的精神存在。因而老庄的“重生”思想包含了三重内涵：重身轻物——珍重人的自然生命;外圆内方——注重人的社会生命;精神自由——关怀人的精神生命。