Making meaning of parenting from the perspective of alienated parents

More than 13% of parents identify as being alienated by at least one of their children. Parental alienation often occurs after divorce when one parent (un)intentionally persuades his or her children to distance themselves from or reject the other parent. This study, couched in relational dialectics theory, explores the meaning of parenting from the perspective of 40 alienated parents. This analysis yielded two competing discourses: the culturally dominant discourse of parental norms (DPN) and the culturally marginalized discourse of parental victimization (DPV). Throughout the narrative interviews, the DPV resisted the DPN in four ways (diachronic separation, entertaining, countering, and negating). This study's findings provide insights into the perspective of the alienated parents, advance what we know about family distancing, and provide practical implications.     

Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective

Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed problem-valid and that strong pragmatic and utilitarian arguments can be given for its intersubjective validity. Thus, conventional validity is promoted for a code of conduct for discussants who want to resolve their disputes reasonably by way of a critical discussion.     

Sur la tête de Gorgias. Le “parler beau” et le “dire vrai” dans Le Banquet de Platon

Rhetoric is at present the object of a rehabilitation on a grand scale, all the more as it overlaps the fields of literature, linguistics, and philosophy. Actually, if philosophy rejects and removes rhetoric, it is nevertheless, as a method of word, wholly impregnated with it. To investigate the complex relationship of mutual implication in which rhetoric and philosophy are involved is part and parcel of this plan of re-evaluation of rhetoric as “discourse art” with a view to a re-definition of its field and functions. In this perspective, rhetoric articulates itself within, in relation to, and with Plato's dialogues in a much more subtle and complex manner than warranted by the process of “anti-rhetoricalness” initiated by philosophy against rhetoric after Plato. Going back to the origins of this conflict and recalling the system of oppositions supporting the official Platonic vulgate, this study begins to pave the way for a micr-reading of the Platonic text regarded as a paradigm of philosophic textuality. It is certainly true that the Phaedrus, the Gorgias, and the Symposium set up a system of oppositions between between rhetoric and dialectrics which are in contrast with each other in the word practices, in the rules and methods of discourse, and which are antinomic in their ends. This system of oppositions always seems to be referable to the opposition between “speaking fair” and “speaking the truth”. But the strategies and procedures set going in the Symposium, in particular in “Agathon's speech” and in “Diotima and Socrates' speech” betray a much closer connection between the supposed “bad rhetoric” revealed by Phaedrus and the “good rhetoric” which is dialectrics. The search for this connection is conducted through two types of reading of the Symposium. In actual fact, between the paronomasia on the agathoi and that on “Gorgias' head” (this Gorgon of rhetoric) there takes place a speech, Agathon's, whose parodied, exacerbated, and counterfeit rhetoric allows us to gauge Plato's own rhetoric in this artefact which distances itself, more or less openly, from Gorgian rhetoric. This “hyper-rhetoricalness” and “over-grammaticalness” cannot be there with the sole aim of serving as evidence against rhetoric. It is in fact possible to perceive through the web of the text the ends, quite rhetorical themselves, which preside over the structure of Agathon's speech, seen from the viewpoint of the figure of the antithesis. Thus, it is in the play of a “neo-rhetoricalness” where we must, in the last analysis, look for the spring allowing the philosophical discourse to overturn the rhetorical one. And while in Giorgias what clothes the discourse is actually the truth, in Plato it is the antinomy between “speaking fair” and “speaking the truth”, conveniently set up, which forms the basis of the function of diversion by which Socrates points out — in the complex network of the continuity and discontinuity existing between rhetoric and philosophy — the structures of reversal and the original upheavals which Plato imposes on the relation between rhetorical and dialectric discourse. Actually, dialectrics is found in “Socrates and Diotima's speech”, not as “anti-rhetoric”, but rather as a “transposition” of the rhetorical discourse, thus acquiring the traits of a “neo-rhetoric”. The analysis of this discourse, which constitutes the second reading exercise of the Symposium, allows us to pick out the aversion and inversion strategies that turn dialectrics in an overtuned rhetoric. The founding deed of this “inversion” (rather than “separation”) is recognizable in the alteration it introduces in the first plase in the type of discourse, which from a rhetorical, explicitly addressed, macrological, monological, and continuous discourse turns into a dialectical, brachylogous, dialogic discourse with partners and interlocutors, i.e. into a dialogue; in the second place, the subject of the discourse shifts from the locuteur, author and signer of the discourse to ever-present interlocutors who end up by making room for a talking and knowing speaker in a regime of anonymous subjectivity: this is an extreme alteration of the anthropological and epistemic subject, culminating in the scientific discourse of Euclidean geometry. Finally, the inversion is recognizable in the object of the discourse, whose prâgma slips from being the predicate of a qualified grammatical subject into a process of objectivation and substantivation, thereby moving from the rhetorical question “What is beautiful?” to the philosophical question “What is the beautiful?”. The hypothesis of a “neo-rhetoricalness” of dialectics, underlying this research, is therefore more Platonic than it appears, insofar as between rhetoric and dialectics there has been a tradition which has tried to wipe out the traces of its transmission, but where the neo-rhetoricalness of dialectics shows through quite clearly, taking advantage, without admitting it, from a more ancient rhetoric than it is itself. (A.T.)     

中医辨证思维的常法与变法

中医辨证思维涉及到"常法"与"变法"的概念,对反映在辨证分析方法中的常法与变法、中医辨证的思辨方法中的常法与变法、中医辨证原理应用的常法与变法加以研究,有利于思辨能力和医疗水平的提高.     

临床肝移植的几点思考

近几年临床肝移植发展极为迅速,也因此产生了许多热点问题,本文对我国目前临床肝移植中存在的几个热点问题加以阐述,同时运用系统和辩证的观点进行分析,针对这些问题提出了自己的观点。     

一个临床医生所遭遇的尴尬

学习自然辩证法的好处之一,就是使得一个多年从事临床医疗实践的医生获得了一个宝贵的机会,可以静下心来从理性和哲学的高度来思考问题,而不是整日沉溺于病人、手术之类的繁琐事物中。然而,通过对医患关系的本质的思考,以及对医学临床当中一些现象的分析,比如,医生和病人对截肢术的不同想法,并上升到哲学高度对医学范式进行了讨论,竟引发出令人困惑的哲学尴尬。最终感到,“以人为本”的思想才是解决困惑的利器。     

氧化型低密度脂蛋白：致动脉粥样硬化和抗动脉粥样硬化的双重作用

研究证明,氧化型低密度脂蛋白（oxLDL）,而不是低密度脂蛋白,是致动脉粥样硬化的独立危险因素。oxLDL主要通过巨噬细胞上的清道夫受体摄入oxLDL,引起血管壁泡沫细胞的堆积和脂纹的形成;oxLDL还改变了内皮细胞、平滑肌细胞、血小板的多种功能,使之释放多种致炎细胞因子,促进了炎症细胞的趋化和聚集。但最近有报道认为,口服免疫耐量的oxLDL可弱化早期和晚期动脉粥样硬化。因此,oxLDL不仅能导致动脉粥样硬化,在某些情况下,还具有抗动脉粥样硬化的作用。本文从辩证法的角度出发,系统的阐述oxLDL的这一双重作用。     

Dialectics of Individual Life and Moral Law: On Adorno’s Non-Identical Moral Philosophy

The article aims to discuss the theme of Adorno’s non-identical moral philosophy, particularly the primacy of individual life over moral laws, as based mainly on his key works like Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life, On Subject and Object, Problems of Moral Philosophy, and Negative Dialectics. The claim here is that the primacy of individual life is made through negative dialectics (“non-idealist dialectics”) dealing with the antithesis between object and subject, particular and universal, individual and society under the theoretical horizon of non-identical philosophy. Meanwhile, as a private ethics, this non-identical moral philosophy based on individual life stands as a kind of negativism, which is focused on negative guidance towards the possibility of right life.     

外部环境资源短缺对员工薪酬奖励偏好的影响与机制

以往关于时间与金钱奖励选择问题的探讨主要从员工工龄视角着手。但这一视角不能直接解释外部环境资源短缺时, 员工对时间与金钱奖励选择偏好的差异问题。本文依据生命史理论, 探讨外部环境资源(如就业资源和自然资源)短缺与否对员工选择时间和金钱奖励偏好的影响及内在机制。本文以即将步入职场的大学生和企业员工为样本, 发现不管是外在就业资源短缺还是外在自然资源短缺都会促使员工更加偏好金钱而非时间奖励, 内在机制是外部环境资源短缺时人们的心理表征更具体, 并且这一现象在高物质主义者身上更为明显(实验1和2)。本文结尾讨论了对资源短缺、时间和金钱等研究领域的理论突破与推进。     

论解放思想的哲学基础

党的十七大在新的历史起点上,号召全党坚持马克思主义思想路线,解放思想,实事求是,与时俱进,不断研究新情况,解决新问题。“解放思想”与“实事求是”是一致的;它是坚持与发展社会主义,实现现代化的法宝。邓小平在重新确立党的正确的思想路线起了决定性作用。它的哲学理论基础是马克思主义世界观和方法论。文章着重阐释了马克思恩格斯新唯物主义与辩证方法若干原创点。