Unintelligibility or Defeat: The Issue of Engagement in Philosophical Debates

A recognition of the acutely terministic and agonistic character of philosophizing has led to the perception of a dilemma in philosophical debates: differing positions are capable of being maintained only at the expense of mutual unintelligibility, and a real contact of minds could never be achieved without one side of the controversy abandoning its position and the enabling argumentative tension ceasing to exist. This perception is sustainable, however, only if we continue to accept the assumption that a direct, unmediated confrontation between disputants personifying two sets of rigidly defined terms is the mode of philosophical argumentation. A triadic rather than diadic conception of a typical debate between opposing schools of thought, which differentiates between the opponent and the audience, would address the theoretical misgivings caused by the perceived predicament.     

心理韧性研究诸进路

心理韧性研究自发轫至今出现了若干可供遵循的进路, 主要有：以人为中心模型、以变量为中心模型、时间路径模型和因素-过程模型等。以人为中心进路围绕“人”开展研究, 将甄别出的心理韧性者与非韧性者及未经历严重压力/逆境者进行比较, 尝试理解心理韧性的由来。以变量为中心进路则聚焦于压力/危险逆境指标、心理韧性相关因子及心理社会发展功能指标, 经由分析这些变量的关系以探寻和推测心理韧性发展的机制。时间路径进路专注于时间进程, 追踪研究对象在严重压力/逆境开始前后到相当长一段时期心理社会功能变化过程特点, 以解读人类压力/逆境适应系统的运作特征及其功能差异, 推断心理韧性发展的过程及机制。因素-过程整合进路则以生态系统理论为指导, 兼顾因素与过程, 尝试提供一个更具研究指导性的心理韧性整合模型和一套机制解释策略基准框架。诸心理韧性研究进路各有侧重, 互有长短, 研究者对之了然于胸将有助于选择适切的研究设计与分析策略, 取长避短, 从而提高研究揭示效力。     

The Manifestation Range of Innately Good Knowledge and Ability,and the Danger of Separation: On Zhuzi’s Question about Understanding Words

Zhuzi (Zhu Xi), Zhang Nanxuan and Lü Donglai continued a discussion begun by Hu Wufeng and his disciples on the subject of “knowing the form of benevolence,” and “seeking for a true mind in an absent one.” One result of their discussion was to make people realize that innately good knowledge and ability are not only manifested in loving one’s parents and respecting one’s elders, but also in the simple acts of drinking when thirsty and eating when hungry. This generated the idea of “manifestation range of innately good knowledge and ability.” However, another conclusion of this discussion claimed that if the desire to drink and eat or the king of Qi’s grudging an ox are included in this range, there would be a danger of viewing innately good knowledge and ability merely as inborn human nature or instinct. This discussion reveals an unsteady relationship between innately good knowledge and ability and the feeling of commiseration, which are sometimes united and sometimes separate.     

张君劢“德法合一”论述评

张君劢的“德法合一”是儒家之德与西方之法的合一,在德与法的关系上,二者并不是地位相同的,德法合一是在德的基础上德与法的合一,德比法更根本,“德法相辅而行”更深层的意义是“德主法辅而行”。张君劢“德法合一”论始终未离儒家道德本位,决定了这种结合仍是停留在道德文化层面,而没有落实为政治法律事实,若将“德法合一”论还原为“内圣外王”之道,我们仍可看到传统儒学在当代社会面临的困境。     

A lost horizon: the experience of an other and school bullying

To date, research on bullying has largely employed empirical methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches. Through this research we have come to understand bullying as both a dyadic and peer group phenomenon, primarily situated in the heads (thinking) of those involved, or in a lack of skill or expertise, or in the delinquency of a bully who needs to be reformed. This research has largely directed its strategies toward problem students using individual and peer group approaches. And yet school bullying continues to be a crucial educational issue affecting millions of students each year. In this project I introduce a missing philosophical perspective. Analyzing the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer I am led to conclude that typical anti-bullying strategies at times simply train bullies to be better at bullying (i.e., learning to bully more covertly, more expertly so as to inflict the same devastation without adult detection). Gadamer invites us to think about bullying in new ways. While certainly involving the thinking and skills of the bully and the victim, Gadamer contends that bullying does not fundamentally result from a problem within the participants, but is fostered by certain spaces between them; terrains that cultivate specific experiences of an "other". Generally, this project stems from an interest in the ways that domination develops in this "space between". Specifically in this paper I ask: What is the nature of "hermeneutic" experience as conceptualized by Gadamer? What kinds of experiences of an other does bullying exemplify? What kinds of experience of an other do non-bullying relations exemplify and what kinds of relational spaces foster such experience? This paper opens up significant new territory for anti-bullying work, expanding our focus to include the space between students which fosters certain inter-personal experiences - experiences situated in domination and stymied growth or, alternatively, experiences of reciprocity which open the possibility of human growth and transformation.     

The Priority of “Liberty” or “Ping An ”: Two Different Cultural Value Priorities and Their Impacts

“Liberty” is a core, prior value of modern Western culture, and particularly of Anglo-American political and economic discourse. For more than a century, the US and other Western countries have been doing their utmost to promote the value of liberty around the world. However, different nations and cultures have different value priorities. Considering “liberty” as the essential, unassailable prior value is an Anglo-American cultural particularity without universal applicability. In China, “liberty” as a high value is a new idea imported from the West at the beginning of the modern era which never enjoyed a very important position in ancient China. Generally speaking, in Chinese culture, the value of “ping an,” with its connotations of peace, safety, equality, health, harmony, and tranquility, is obviously a prior value. Different value priorities have different impacts on culture. This paper tries to compare the American value priority of “liberty” with the Chinese value priority of “ping an,” while discussing their different historical backgrounds and cultural impacts. It argues that values and value priorities are neither absolute nor universal, but that they are rather historical, situational, and dynamic. Value priority in a society should be based on that society’s particular social reality and on the stage of development and the life requirements of its people, rather than on an outside imperative. In the era of globalization, different and even sometimes contradictory human values may actually mutually complement and counterbalance one another.     

THE CHANGING CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE INSTITUTE ON RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE AND ZYGON

Since Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science was founded 49 years ago and since one of its co‐publishers, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS), was founded 60 years ago, there have been significant developments in their various cultural contexts—in science, in religion, in culture, in academia, and in the science and religion dialogue. This article is a personal remembrance and reflection that compares the context of IRAS in 1954 when it was first organized with the context of IRAS and Zygon today. It considers the contemporary niche of IRAS in relation to the developments that have occurred over the past 60 years.     

RNAi的曲折经历与发展

RNAi是当今分子生物学研究领域内最引人注目的技术之一.已经在植物、线虫、果蝇、锥虫甚至哺乳动物细胞中发现RNAi现象. RNAi同时也是体内抵御病毒入侵、抵抗外在感染和抑制转座子活动的一种重要保护机制.通过介绍RNAi 技术富有传奇色彩的诞生和发展过程以及它对分子生物学乃至整个生命科学界产生的巨大作用,认识到RNAi是多学科联合发展的结果.我们应该加强各学科之间的整合.