Good writers,bad Jews: the “Jewish Question” among Hungarian Jewish intellectuals of the interwar period

This paper investigates the perceived place of the Jewish writer in interwar Hungarian Jewish literature. Post-World War I Hungary suffered from the effects of a short-lived communist regime, and the Trianon Treaty by losing two-thirds of its territories and more than half of its population. Though previously Jewish communities had thrived in the country, these events caused resentment that manifested itself in the creation of anti-Semitic laws in 1920. Within this new context, assimilated liberal young Jewish writers posed the question of “what is a Jew,” reflecting on their Jewishness and Hungarianness at the same time and pondering about the value of each. They answered the question in their creative works, where they indirectly explored issues such as whether Jews are able to write Hungarian novels or whether only a Hungarian can do so; whether Jewish Hungarians could write Hungarian Jewish novels; whether Hungarianness and Jewishness are compatible or whether writing literature is preconditioned on identity. Through the lens of Aladár Komlós, this paper examines the way in which liberal and assimilated young Hungarian Jewish writers interpreted their place in Hungarian culture and society within the framework of these questions.     

A very obscure definition: Descartes’s account of love in the Passions of the Soul and its scholastic background

The definition of love given by Descartes in the Passions of the Soul (art. 79–84) has never stopped puzzling commentators. If the first Cartesian textbooks discreetly evoke or even fail to discuss Descartes’s account of love, Spinoza harshly criticizes it, pointing out that it is ‘on all hands admitted to be very obscure’. More recently several scholars have noticed the puzzling (or even paradoxical) character of the articles of the Passions of the Soul on love and hate. In this paper, I would like to propose a reassessment of the definition of love provided by the Passions of the Soul and the Letters to Elisabeth and Chanut. By tracing back Descartes’s scholastic sources (namely Aquinas’s treatises on the passions and charity in the Summa Theologiae), I will demonstrate how Descartes builds up his definition of love by displacing or subverting the meaning of several major elements of the thomistic vulgata on love. Hence, a significant part of the obscurity of the definition given by the Passions of the Soul possibly finds its ultimate rationale in this attempt to recover some traditional questions of the scholastic debate on love, while advancing new answers to them.     

PETER HARRISON,LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN,AND THE PROBLEM OF PRE‐MODERN RELIGION

Peter Harrison's Gifford Lectures demonstrate that the modern concepts of “religion” and “science” do not correspond to any fixed sphere of life in the pre‐modern world. Because these terms are incommensurate and ideological, they misconstrue the past. I examine the influence and affinities of Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy on Harrison's study in order to argue that Harrison's project approaches Wittgenstein's. Harrison's book is a therapeutic history, untying a knot in scholarly language. I encourage Harrison, however, to clarify how future scholars can progress in their study of phenomena once termed “scientific” or “religious” without succumbing to these same mistakes.     

解读现代版希波克拉底誓言

随着医学的飞速发展,医学伦理学、医学哲学被赋予了新的科学内涵。这一内涵在现代版"希波克拉底誓言"中得以具体体现。从行善原则、生命价值原则、尊重自主原则、公平公益原则、有利与不伤害原则、医疗最优化原则、医疗保密原则等方面对该誓言进行了全面阐述,其中蕴涵着丰富的社会哲学、价值哲学、道德哲学等哲学思想。     

真菌性角膜炎的早期诊断技术

真菌性角膜炎是危害人类的严重眼科疾病,早期诊断是降低其致盲的关键步骤。概述真菌性角膜炎早期诊断技术的发展简史,分析各种早期诊断技术的优缺点。启示综合运用真菌性角膜炎的早期诊断技术,可提高本病的早期诊断率,改善人类生活质量。     

从现代系统科学角度看冠状动脉支架置入术后再狭窄

随着介入治疗技术在临床的广泛应用,目前已成为治疗冠心病（CAD）的主要方法之一。目前国内外指南一致推荐对于CAD的大多数de novo病变常规置入支架,可有效减少单纯球囊扩张的并发症和再狭窄的发生率,但支架内再狭窄的形成又日益突出,成为严重影响介入治疗远期疗效的主要问题。对再狭窄发生机制的研究近十年来取得诸多新进展,对其发生机制的研究和探索为解决这个世纪难题提供了理论基础和依据。本文应用现代系统科学的自组织理论,从哲学角度深入认识和理解这一病理过程。     

从"理学别派"到士人佛学——由明清思想史的主题演进试论近代唯识学的思想特质

The best representatives of the self-reflection of xinxue 心学 (the School of Mind) and its development during the Ming and Qing Dynasties are the three masters from the late Ming Dynasty. The overall tendency is to shake off the internal constraints of the School of Mind by studying the Confucian classics and history. During the Qing Dynasty, Dai Zhen had attempted to set up a theoretical system based on Confucian classics and history, offering a theoretical foundation for a new academic movement that gradually suspended issues studied by the School of Mind. But the suspension of these issues does not mean they were resolved. For Peng Shaosheng, xinzong 心宗 (the Doctrine of Mind) has emerged from a bottleneck in the development of the Confucian yi li zhi xue 义理之学 (doctrine of meanings and principles): The only way to find the transcendent connection between the doctrine of meanings and principles and the Dao was through the internality of belief. In this case, the Lay Buddhists, represented by Peng Shaosheng, Wang Dashen and Luo Yougao, as lixue biepai 理学别派 (Alternative School of Principles), played the role that the School of Mind had undertaken in the late Ming Dynasty, thus becoming a shelter for the Confucian doctrine of meanings and principles. To a certain extent, the revival of weishixue 唯识学 (the Consciousness-Only School) during modern times was simply a continuance of the “Alternative School of Principles”. It took over the Lay Buddhist theme of the doctrine of meanings and principles of the Qing Dynasty and tried to construct a new pattern of learning for Confucian classics that matched up with the doctrine of meanings and principles, offering a model of integration for the reconstruction of the Confucian tradition. Translated by Huang Deyuan from Zhexue yanjiu 哲学研究 (Philosophical Research), 2007, (9): 51–60     

论自开商埠的文化培植——以周村商埠文化为例

周村商埠文化的形成主要有两个渠道：传统继承和现代培植。所谓传统继承,就是传统文化的影响。具体到周村的商埠文化,主要传承有齐文化、儒文化、民俗文化和外地文化传统。所谓现代培植,就是现代文化因素的规范、引导和影响,主要是当地政府的经济政策和国外现代工商业文化的培育和冲击。     

Orthodoxy and Science

The Orthodox Church is uneasy about contemporary science. What causes its uneasiness is not exclusively its slow reception of modern culture. An important cause is the fact that contemporary research sidelines ethical and spiritual criteria. The practical application of scientific discoveries in the area of biotechnologies provides abundant evidence for this. That said, progress is being made in regard to the Orthodox appraisal of modern culture and contemporary science and toward self-assessment against current cultural trends. This progress cannot make an impact, however, without an authenticating framework. Fortunately, three documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church provide an implicit framework for addressing matters such as the Orthodox attitude toward science, especially biology and its related branches, in light of theological anthropology and traditional ethical and spiritual criteria. A shared particularity of these documents is that they consider modern culture and scientific research in a missional perspective.