近世大阪にあって公儀と不即不離の関係を保ち、独自の学風を築いた懐徳堂朱子学派の学問・思想の伝統と特質を、豊富な史料に基づいて考察した本格的な研究書。.

本书围绕全球正义的哲学论述、跨文明视野中人权与正义原则、民主与和平的政治哲学三个专题,收入论文15篇。.

Thomas Aquinas has argued that the passion of hope is the movement of the sensitive appetite and the first of the irascible passion. The first part of the article aims to explore the cause and the mechanism of the passion of hope, and tries to clarify the relationship between the passion of hope and the perception. In human beings, it is possible that the passion of hope is caused by false judgement of the perception, which will lead to the result (...) of false hope. In Aquinas’s argument, the problem of false hope could be solved through the moral virtue and the prudence. In the second part of this article, the aim is to analyse how the virtue of magnanimity, humility and the prudence work impact on the passion of hope and perfect it.Contribution: This research concentrates on the topic of the passion of hope of Thomas Aquinas, and provides a new perspective on the understanding of the relationship between the passion and the virtue. (shrink)

本书以个案研究和横向研究的方式梳理中西法学思想,梳理法学事件,于“真理、道理、情理与法理”的交融中审视法律、法学和法学家的时代使命。.

Ben shu dui ke xue mei xue si xiang shi de yan jiu dui xiang, ren wu he fang fa jin xing le xi tong di lun shu.

本书为法制研究文集,致力于探讨中国社会与人生所表达的生活方式,探索其中所蕴藏的活的规则,即自然之法,从追索中国自家的“立法”,讨一个“说法”,进而得出一个“活法”。.

本书介绍了职业道德的特征、社会主义职业道德的基本原则和规范,职业道德的教育、修养和评价等内容。.

In this paper, I provide a framework for accounting for the self, based on a reconstruction of Galen Strawson’s “theory of SESMETs,” or the Pearl view, with Barry Dainton’s continuous consciousness thesis. I argue that the framework I provide adequately accounts for the self and is preferable to solely adopting either Strawson’s or Dainton’s theory. I call my reconstruction the “Necklace” view of the self.

本书对科技与政治交互作用空间的性质、结构及其张力进行了基本阐述,探讨科技政治空间价值张力的离合及有机统一的作用规律以及科技政治空间自由与干涉的权力张力及其作用规律等。.

本书分四个部分:第一部分以梁漱溟先生的思虑为个案样本,探讨法的一般理念问题;第二部分论及宪政、普通法和近代西方法律教育与法学研究;第三部分意在研索“罪孽理念与罪刑关系”;第四部分为通讯体论文。.

The theme of this issue of Ethical Perspectives is the French tradition in liberal thought, and the unique contribution that this tradition can make to debates in contemporary liberalism. It is inspired by a colloquium held at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in December of 2008 entitled “In Search of a Lost Liberalism: Constant, Tocqueville, and the singularity of French Liberalism.” This colloquium was held in conjunction with the retirement of Leuven professor and former Dean of the Institute of Philosophy, André (...) Van de Putte, who found much inspiration in this tradition. A revised version of his valedictory lecture from the conference serves as the final contribution to this issue. Much contemporary liberal political philosophy is currently done in conversation with a line of liberal thinkers starting with John Locke, running through Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, and culminating in the work of John Rawls and his followers. The reasons for the enormous appeal of this philosophical tradition are, among other things, the combination of the central role of the intuitively appealing value of individual liberty with a strong rationalistic, universalistic, and normative character. The thread running through most of these liberal theories is a commitment to what the French liberal Benjamin Constant referred to as “the liberty of the moderns,” that is, liberty in a negative sense, as a lack of interference in one’s activity from others and from government. This focus has expanded over time to include a richer body of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, for instance, in the work of liberal thinkers who have tried to integrate the insights of communitarian thought and discourse ethics in their work. However, the emphasis on individual liberty in the negative sense continues to be the normative and theoretical touchstone and default position for many contemporary liberal theories. The limitation of the canon of liberal thought to the aforementioned authors and themes deprives the contemporary debate of a rich source of ideas: the French liberal tradition. Montesquieu, considered to be the father of this tradition, provides a good example of how it can enrich current debates in liberal theory. Montesquieu’s work evinces a keen eye for the dynamics of power relations and the limitations of the power of the better rational argument. His insight that power can sometimes only be checked by an equal and opposing power, so that a system of separation and balance of powers is necessary in order to preserve liberty, is reflected in the foundations of most modern democracies. Montesquieu also argues that contingent environmental, historical, social and economic conditions play a dramatic role in determining what kind of government is appropriate for a particular society. On his view, ignoring these facts when framing a government can inadvertently end in despotism. Montesquieu’s observations challenge us to reexamine some of contemporary liberalism’s universalist and rationalist claims. Benjamin Constant is most famous for his distinction between two kinds of liberty: the liberty of the ancients and the liberty of the moderns. The ancient form of liberty manifested itself in the active political participation of citizens in the ancient republic. While this form of government and decision-making was suitable for small, homogeneous city-states, Constant argues that it is impracticable for large modern nation-states. Hence, the concept of modern liberty shifts to an emphasis on the rule of law and the non-interference of the state in private matters. This form of liberty is familiar to us from contemporary liberalism – and Constant cherishes this form of freedom as much as any liberal does today. However, his position is complex: he also argues that the liberty of the ancients should not be neglected. Active political participation is needed to ensure that the government is executing its duty of preserving the modern form of liberty by publicly pointing out violations. The contemporary relevance of Constant’s work is clear when we consider the alleged “democratic deficit” that plagues the EU and international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank. Not only does this democratic deficit threaten the modern form of liberty by placing decision-making processes out of sight of the people, it also threatens citizens’ sense of self-respect derived from self-governance. Constant’s argument for the necessity of combining the liberty of the ancients with that of the moderns provides a fruitful resource for confronting these contemporary issues. Tocqueville’s work on liberalism benefits from his opportunity to observe a society founded on liberal democratic principles – the United States of America – in action. In his Democracy in America, he examines the social consequences, both intended and unintended, of building a society on ‘the equality of conditions’, as he defines ‘democracy’. Tocqueville sees a tension between the democratic value of equality and the aristocratic value of the rule of the best. He observes that democratic societies do not necessarily choose the best leaders and instead promote mediocrity instead of virtue, talent, and excellence. Democracy also confronts citizens with the threat of ‘soft despotism’, where a government that preserves the outer signs of the liberty of the moderns nevertheless controls the behavior of its citizens in minute detail through a system of detailed rules ostensibly aimed at their welfare. This paternalism is an even more insidious threat to liberal values than the hard variety of despotism, since it is so difficult to detect and done in the name of liberal values themselves. Taking Tocqueville’s observations seriously would add complexity to attempts to theorize about the modern social-democratic welfare state. The contributions to this issue supplement and critique mainstream liberal thought and its relation to contemporary issues through a serious engagement with the French liberal tradition. Annelien De Dijn’s contribution discusses Bertrand de Jouvenel, a lesser-known 20th Century representative of the French political tradition she terms ‘aristocratic liberalism’. This tradition has its roots in the work of Montesquieu, and emphasizes the importance of intermediary bodies, most importantly the aristocracy, in providing a check to the top-down power of despotic state authorities and the bottom-up power of revolutionary leveling tendencies, both of which threaten liberty. De Dijn situates Jouvenel in this tradition, but then indicates an important difference between his thought and that of his predecessors: his most significant work, On Power, is not only on French history, but on European history. Pointing to the enthusiastic reception of this work in the Anglophone world, she suggests that the rise of totalitarianism in Europe gave the anti-totalitarian features of aristocratic liberalism a broader appeal. Valentino Lumowa’s paper concerns Constant’s classic text, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns. Lumowa argues that in order to understand Constant’s piece, we must be aware that its two parts were written under different historical circumstances and decipher the argumentative thrust inherent in the text. Following Stephen Holmes, he argues that to understand the shift Constant made in the second part of the text, we should read it within the context of the increasing influence of the ultra-Royalists in the legislature during the Bourbon Restoration. However, in contrast to Holmes, he contends that the spirit of both civic and individual freedom, which enlivens representative system, is the backbone of the text in its unity. Demin Duan’s essay investigates an apparent ambivalence between liberal and imperialist tendencies in the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, which has already drawn some attention from Tocquevillian scholars. These interpretations of Tocqueville and his writings on empire generally agree that Tocqueville stands in a recognized tradition of liberalism, which is characterized by respect for human rights, individual freedom and a sense of universal humanism. On this standard view, Tocqueville’s support of imperialism represents nothing but an unfortunate breach of his own otherwise consistent liberal thinking. Duan’s article questions this standard position. By questioning the assumption of Tocqueville’s liberalism in the first place, he tries to gauge the influence of both the old republican tradition and the new liberal perspective on his thinking. In conclusion, he argues that Tocqueville’s overall thought, especially his notion of freedom, is very much informed by an old republican tradition. His support of French imperialism could be better understood from this perspective rather than be rendered simply as a deviation from liberal norms. Pawel Marczewski’s contribution is an attempt to show that Tocqueville’s conception of liberty transcends the divisions between negative and positive aspects of freedom. He begins by juxtaposing this conception with the opposition drawn by Constant between liberty of the ancients and liberty of the moderns. While Tocqueville and Constant shared a concern for the preservation of individual rights, Tocqueville was much more reluctant to accept the modern loss of the communal dimension of liberty. He did not accept the view that jouissances privées, private pleasures, are the main compensation that the modern world has to offer for the lost ancient treasure of political participation. The essay then looks into the relevance of Tocqueville’s standpoint for current debates between liberal defenders of negative freedom and republican advocates of freedom as non-domination. Participants on both sides of the debate seem to be so devoted to showing that their particular approach provides the best guarantees against actual and possible threats to liberty that they overlook the fact that their definitions of freedom remain significantly similar. By arguing that ‘to be free is to be guided by one’s own will’, contemporary republicans, as well as their liberal counterparts, move along the lines drawn by Constant towards private pleasures. By questioning the inevitability of this turn, Tocqueville provides us with a valuable contribution to these discussions in contemporary political philosophy. Finally, André Van de Putte’s contribution, an adaptation of his emeritus speech that closed the conference on French Liberalism, appeals to Tocqueville in order to draw attention to the importance of intermediary, dialogical bodies in mitigating the implicit despotic tendencies of the democratic drive to equality. In Tocqueville’s view, the transition from the feudal corporate inequality to democratic individual equality was not a clean break. Rather, this transition is a continual process of democratization that is driven by a desire for equality, or egalité des conditions. This dissolution of distinctions of estate, class and status has the unintended consequence of concentrating the diffuse power of these entities into a centralized state, which is responsible for ensuring the equality of all under the law. This process leaves increasingly isolated and atomized individuals to face the power of a monolithic state in defense of their freedom, and moves toward a soft, paternalistic despotism. Constant’s freedom of the moderns is not sufficient to protect individuals from this centralized power. Democracy also requires the political freedom of the ancients. Van de Putte argues for a system in which atomized individuals organize themselves into intermediary bodies that, in a Montesquieuian balance of powers, can enter into dialogue with each other and the state on more equitable terms. Van de Putte’s contribution closes with a plea for a conception of democracy as a regime of dialogue. (shrink)

Tocqueville’s imperialism has recently attracted much attention in Tocqueville studies. The challenge is to reconcile his imperialism to his liberalism. Is Tocqueville merely a classical liberal thinker who based his liberal theory on human rights and universal humanism? If so, then his support for imperialism would inevitably seem irrational and awkward. The present contribution questions this approach and argues that Tocqueville is more influenced by a republican tradition of freedom, on account of which he grants a positive value to both (...) the state as a political community and to its power as a necessary instrument in the protection of freedom. On these grounds we may explain his sense of empire from the perspective of his liberal theory, while simultaneously adjusting our understanding of his liberalism. (shrink)

The issue of (in)compatibility between Confucianism and modern democracy, particularly in China, has attracted much debate over the decade. This article singles out the particular notion of Minben ??, which is at the center of the argument for a ?Confucian democracy?, and argues that it is fundamentally different from modern democracy. However, this does not mean that Confucianism could not be connected with modern democracy. The important question is: what exactly does it mean to ?connect? Confucianism to the modern society? (...) The author argues that only by being disconnected with political power could there be meaningful ?Confucian democracy? today in China. (shrink)

本书是关于新意识形态批评的论文集,本书要论述的意图是:以理论与社会生活的密切关系而言,中国文论家可以创造出自己的“本位话语”,其具体问题集中为两个,即文化转型中的当代中国的精神建构和建立文学理论的本位 话语。.

本书内容包括:孔子思想的主要特征、老子思想的文化地位、墨子思想的历史影响、孟子思想的历史影响、董仲舒在学术思想史上的地位、张衡在中国思想文化上的地位等内容。.

本书简要地介绍了《周易》的一些重要概念及其在二十一世纪的可能应用,指出以《周易》为代表的东方文明对人类社会在新世纪的可持续发展所可能做出的贡献。.

The subject of this work is the worldview of subculture and its complex interaction with the elements and structure of these groups. To do this, various types of subcultures are analyzed in detail in order to identify their unique ideological features and characteristics. The main purpose of the research is to find links between the worldview of subcultures and their structural elements, as well as to understand the impact of these links on socio-cultural processes. By analyzing these issues, the study (...) seeks to expand our understanding of subcultural dynamics and their place in the modern sociocultural context. The results of this work can be useful for further research in the field of anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, as well as for the development of practical strategies for managing and supporting subcultural communities. To achieve the goals of the study, an anthropological analysis of subcultures is used, which includes an analysis of synchronous and diachronic aspects of the subcultural worldview, as well as comparative analysis. The scientific novelty of this work is manifested in a deep and comprehensive analysis of the diversity of types of worldview representation in various subcultures and their impact on a wide range of socio-cultural processes. The analysis presented in the study reveals unique aspects of the subcultural worldview and its diverse manifestations, which not only contributes to a deeper understanding of the socio-cultural dynamics of modern society, but also expands our knowledge of the mechanisms of formation and functioning of subcultural communities. The conclusions of this work are important both for academic research in the field of anthropology and sociology, and for practical applications, for example, those aimed at effective management and support of subcultural groups in modern society, including the development of policies and programs that promote inclusivity, cultural diversity and socio-cultural harmony. (shrink)

Hui Shi (370-310B.C.E.?) is a unique one among the pre-Qin scholars. The object and orientation of his scholarship emphasized on “chasing after the materials” or the research for objective knowledge of natural things. He shows a tendency of tolerating and advocating diversity and variety, and intentionally pursuing new and unusual ideas. In certain degree he judges the value of knowledge by its truthfulness rather than its usefulness. As pointed out by Wing-tsit Chan, Hui shi represents a “tendency in ancient China (...) toward intellectualism for its own sake”. (shrink)

本书辑录了作者近年来已发表的一些文章,包括:求索时代精神:个人思想历程、语言与哲学:学术研究偶得、现实与虚构:世纪之交的思想文化争论、事实与责任:历史反思等。.

本书内容包括传统道德的现代价值、更加重视世界观问题、环保意识的觉醒、做好社区的思想工作、压岁钱的变迁等。.

许地山(1894~1941),名赞〓,字地山,笔名落华生,乳名叔丑,著名文学家.

本书收录了汉语法学界近年关于法律信仰的九篇论文,包括《法律信仰与法制现代化》、《法律信仰与民族国家》、《法律如何信仰》等。.

本书共分十章,分别从临床治疗、人体研究、疾病与健康、生育控制、器官移植、人类基因组研究等方面介绍或探讨相关的伦理原则、规范及问题。.

本书包括:近代哲学的逻辑走向;哲学就是认识论;认识论包含认识理论认识历史两个方面;认识在存在中揭露本质等内容。.