Where Philosophy and Literature merge in the Platonic dialogues

It is no surprise if a good quality communication unit succeeds in seizing the attention of the intended audience (or readership) and is able to let people see precisely what the author wanted them to see, while avoiding that the average addressee become aware of what the author wants to convey in an almost subliminal way. In this respect Plato is no exception. Nevertheless the study of these resources, far from having been somewhat systematic, still is largely neglected, and only a minority of commentators find it important to pay head to the communicational strategies which are at work in Plato's dialogues. It will be argued that the shades of meaning and the contextualization of thought (a) systematically grant to Plato ample room for affecting the way a reader comes to perceive his points of doctrine and (b) often let him convey a biased perception of his arguments.The paper includes an outline of the already longstanding debate on these matters, a case study (Memo 80–82), and a sketchy typology of how the literary working-out is able to affect the reader's perception of the line of thought, esp. within the aporetic dialogues.     

GLOCALIZATION: RELIGION AND SCIENCE AROUND THE WORLD

This essay explains the rationale behind a series of reviews on interactions between knowledge and values, science and religion, in different countries or regions around the world. The series will run in Zygon for the whole of 2015 and beyond. In the literature, it may seem that discussions in the United States and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom are typical of the issues, but they need not be. David Livingstone showed that the reception of evolution differed, even among Calvinists in different countries. Thus, rather than an export model, we should take time to learn from scholars rooted in different contexts how in their situation issues on knowledge and values arise and are dealt with. In this interplay of global processes and local contexts, indicated with the term glocalization, we should be alert to the migration of concepts and the transformations that ideas undergo.     

基于组织的自尊的情境化与适用性

基于组织的自尊(OBSE)是组织情境下个人对自身能力和价值的评价, 对员工的工作态度、行为和绩效有重要的影响。在回顾最近研究的基础上, 总结了基于组织的自尊的情境化测量与结构。在整合现有相关研究和理论的基础上, 构建了基于组织的自尊情境化研究的法理性框架。针对国内外基于组织的自尊研究的差异, 结合中国情境的特殊性, 对“基于组织的自尊”概念在中国情境下语义差异、语义等值和情境适用性进行了讨论。最后, 对基于组织的自尊未来的情境化研究以及在中国情境下的发展进行了展望。     

组织心理学研究的情境化及多层次理论

由于组织具有明确的目标和特定的任务, 组织心理与一般情境中人的心理有所区别。由于组织情境下的心理与行为受到个体、群体、组织甚至社会几个层次上的多种因素的影响, 组织心理研究者所建立理论要揭示这些情境变量与所研究的现象之间的联系。本文首先介绍了近年来组织研究中的情境化趋势, 举例说明情境化对于理论发展的贡献。随后, 本文阐述了组织心理学研究中的理论层次问题, 强调界定构念和理论层次的必要性, 并说明界定理论层次背后的逻辑。文章以群体层次的研究为例, 说明形成群体层次构念的方法以及测量群体层次构念时需要注意的问题。鉴于组织中个体层次的因变量会受到个体和更高层次变量的共同影响, 文章在最后部分介绍了组织心理学研究中的多层次理论。本文以近年来发表的组织心理学研究报告为例, 说明研究的情境化以及建立多层次理论的方法。     

组织行为学研究的现状：意义与建议

本文对2008~2011年这4个年度发表在英文和中文组织行为学方面重要学术期刊上的研究进行总结, 旨在让国内学者了解现今组织行为学的现状和发展。我们在分析研究内容、研究方法的基础上, 就当前中国组织行为学研究提出了一些总结性的看法, 包括：研究问题很大程度上追随国际潮流, 但缺乏对本土重要问题的关注; 研究方法过多地集中于定量的问卷调查法, 但缺乏对多种不同方法的应用; 研究的分析层次过多地集中在个体层次上, 而对多层次的组织和团队管理现象关注不足。为更好地促进组织行为学科的发展, 本文建议：应该注重立足中国的组织和管理现象来挖掘研究问题; 采用多种研究方法, 特别应鼓励开展定性研究; 注重跨层次研究和研究的情境化等。本文通过介绍近年来组织行为领域的全面情况并详细分析其中的若干个例, 为如何克服以上不足提供具体的范例和方法。     

Re-Interpretation in Historiography: John Dewey and the Neo-Humanist Tradition

Did John Deweys new philosophy of education really try to dissolve the whole block of tradition or is his debt namely to educational core-concepts of neo-humanism deeper than he was prepared to acknowledge? After some general remarks on the process of reception as productive re-adaptation and its implication for historiography I will deal with Deweys own contexts that shape the interpretative grid through which he receives the tradition. Two case studies attempt to illustrate both continuity and discontinuity with a specific part of this tradition, namely two critical perspectives within German neo-humanism: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Johann Friedrich Herbart.     

INTO TERRA INCOGNITA: CHARTING BEYOND PETER HARRISON'S THE TERRITORIES OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Peter Harrison's The Territories of Science and Religion throws down a serious challenge to advocates of dialogue as the primary means of engagement between science and religion. This article accepts the validity of this challenge and looks at four possible responses to it. The first—a return to the past—is rejected. The remaining three—exploring new epistemic frameworks for the encounter of science and religion, broadening out the engagement beyond the context of the physical sciences and Western culture, and looking at ways in which scientific and theological practitioners may collaborate on practical problems—are all offered as potential ways in which science and religion may engage with one another, in ways which move beyond Harrison's critique.