Relationships Among Conflict Management Styles,Levels of Conflict,and Reactions to Work

Abstract

Relationships among (a) conflict management styles, (b) levels of conflict, (c) two general reactions to work, and (d) four types of individual outcomes experienced by employees in the United States were assessed in two studies. In Study 1, subordinates using a high-obliging style with supervisors experienced more intrapersonal conflict, supervisors using a high-integrating style with subordinates reported more intrapersonal and intragroup conflict, and low-dominating supervisors reported significantly greater intragroup conflict. In Study 2, high-integrating subordinates experienced less intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict than low-integrating subordinates did. The results of analyses also indicated that there was a strong relationship between integrating and all six organizational outcomes. Lower job satisfaction and fewer interpersonal rewards were associated with a high-dominating style. Both integrating and compromising were positively related to interpersonal outcomes, and dominating and avoiding were negatively related to interpersonal outcomes. Finally, the more conflict individuals experienced on the job, the lower their job satisfaction and their outcomes were.     

Modal fictionalism and possible-worlds discourse

The Brock-Rosen problem has been one of the most thoroughly discussed objections to the modal fictionalism bruited in Gideon Rosen’s ‘Modal Fictionalism’. But there is a more fundamental problem with modal fictionalism, at least as it is normally explained: the position does not resolve the tension that motivated it. I argue that if we pay attention to a neglected aspect of modal fictionalism, we will see how to resolve this tension—and we will also find a persuasive reply to the Brock-Rosen objection. Finally, I discuss an alternative reading of Rosen, and argue that this position is also able to fend off the Brock-Rosen objection.     

大学生世界观、人生观、价值观形成中的接受机制

大学生三观形成过程是与接受对象和接受环境互动的过程。大学生的知识结构、价值取向、意志品格决定着其三观接受倾向及信念内化的过程。三观信息反映现实的深度 ,与接受者内在认知结构和观念的契合程度 ,影响着其被接受的程度。而接受环境具有验证、巩固或修正、改变原有的三观观念的作用。应赋予三观以更深厚的文化基础和精神内涵 ,增强其理论创新和与现实的贯通性。     

Leibniz,creation and the best of all possible worlds

Leibniz argued that God would not create a world unless it was the best possible world. I defend Leibniz’s argument. I then consider whether God could refrain from creating if there were no best possible world. I argue that God, on pain of contradiction, could not refrain from creating in such a situation. I conclude that either this is the best possible world or God is not our creator.     

死亡的解析

死亡的痛苦来源于对死亡的无知。依据辩证法原理,结合现代科学的最新发现,对死亡的本质进行解析发现:死亡是构成生命的物质和意识在运动形式上的特殊转化,而非生命体的消失。灵魂是生命体的核心成分之一,而灵魂的实质是承载深层意识的超微观物质结构。     

成于乐的圆成之境——论牟宗三的美学世界及其与康德美学的不同

牟宗三虽然不以美学家名世,但是却有丰富的美学思想。牟宗三的前期美学思想,为其后来的美学思想奠立了基调,这是解开与把握其美学思想的关键。他的美学世界是以本体论的逻辑构造为基础而建立的宇宙论的逻辑构造。他以中国儒家式的天心为建立美的判断的最后的超越原则,以取代康德以“自然之目的性”概念为建立美的判断的最后的超越原则,从而重建康德的美学;相对于康德的美学乃至于西方主流的美学来说,的确是提出了一条新的美学思路即道德的形上学的审美之路,拓宽了美学的领域,开阔了研究美学的视野,对人是不乏启发的。牟宗三与康德各自处于不同的文化背景与哲学传统之中,其所成就的哲学或美学以不同的面貌、风格与类型现世,原属自然。问题在于,如何在中西哲学、美学,乃至文化之间找到一块双方都承认的共同所有的空白地带,作为通约的基础,并在这一基础上来展开中西哲学相互对话与相互融通的工作,既有世界性人类性,又不失其民族性与个性,才是我们所企盼的前景。     

形式语用学视角中的生活世界理论

哈贝马斯吸收和整合了当代各种语言哲学的成就,形成了自己的语言哲学——形式语用学。这一理论通过对言语行为的意义与它的有效性要求之间内在关联性的分析,指出了言语行为的意义只有在交往行为中才能呈现出来。在解释言语行为的最终来源问题上,哈贝马斯引入胡塞尔的“生活世界”理论,并对它进行了形式语用学的改造。形式语用学的生活世界理论消解了胡塞尔生活世界理论中的先验性,同时又拓宽了韦伯的行为合理化理论视域。     

Theology's Need for a New Interpretation of Nature: Correlate of the Doctrine of Grace

Abstract : Important aspects of contemporary life—from increasing dependence on technology to climate change, from changing views of human nature to global interactions among varied cultures and religions—demand that theologians consider the best understandings of the world that the sciences can offer. To help support a fully relational trinitarian concept of God, namely, one that offers a richer interpretation of God's relationship with the world, theology needs truth about the world, humans, and our place in relation to the rest of nature. Lutheran theological foci have a built‐in thirst that only dialogue with science can quench. Too narrow an approach to anthropology and justification by faith focuses on God's activity on behalf of humans as if apart from nature. We need a more comprehensive vision of God's activity in creation, redemption and sanctification by grace. To explicate this, we turn to Luther's emphasis on God's incarnation in human flesh and blood—thus also in the cells, molecules, and subatomic activity of the world; the communication of attributes; and the indwelling Christ. For a deeper understanding of God as triune and of redemption, we need a renewed emphasis on the connection between creation, incarnation and redemption, and between nature and grace. An increased knowledge of science contributes to a healthier approach to the church's mission by giving a theological basis for ethical action in relation to the (natural) world.     

If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics

Most known technology serves to ingeniously adapt the world to the physical and mental limitations of human beings. Humankind has acquired awesome power with its rather limited means. Nanotechnological capabilities further this power. On some accounts, however, nanotechnological research will contribute to a rather different kind of technological development, namely one that changes human beings so as to remove or reduce their physical and mental limitations. The prospect of this technological development has inspired a fair amount of ethical debate. Here, proponents and opponents of such visions of human enhancement are criticized alike for engaging in speculative ethics. This critique exposes a general pattern that extends to other nano-, bio-, or neuroethical debates. While it does not apply to all discussions of “enhancement technologies” it does apply to all ethical discourse that constructs and validates an incredible future which it only then proceeds to endorse or critique. This discourse violates conditions of intelligibility, squanders the scarce and valuable resource of ethical concern, and misleads by casting remote possibilities or philosophical thought-experiments as foresight about likely technical developments. In effect, it deflects consideration from the transformative technologies of the present.