哲学与科学的联姻——论杜威哲学思想中的科学因素

杜威早期基于生物学的进化论和心理学的机能主义等形成了他的实用主义和工具主义,中后期又基于现代科学的研究方法和程序来对哲学进行改造,其哲学的最终指向是把自然科学中的研究方法和模式转化为一般性的探究模式,从而指导道德、社会、教育、宗教等广泛的社会人文领域,杜威对于科学的哲学讨论对于理解哲学和科学的关系提供了重要的理论借鉴。     

‘The Economic’ According to Aristotle: Ethical, Political and Epistemological Implications

A renewed concern with Aristotle’s thought about the economic aspects of human life and society can be observed. Aristotle dealt with the economic issues in his practical philosophy. He thus considered ‘the economic’ within an ethical and political frame. This vision is coherent with a specific ontology of ‘the economic’ according to Aristotle. In a recent paper, I analysed this ontology and left its consequences, especially for Ethics and Politics, for another paper. In this article, I firstly summarise the reasoning and conclusions of the aforementioned paper. Then, I extract the ethical and political “lessons” of the Aristotelian conception. I finally add a section with epistemological “lessons”, and consequences for the teaching of Economics.     

“算法伦理”的价值基础及其建构进路

"算法伦理"是计算机科学与伦理学相交叉的研究领域,它主要研究算法本身的伦理属性以及算法所体现出来的伦理功能。作为计算机伦理的重要内容,算法伦理以人权、社会公正、人类福祉、美德为其价值基础,以算法设计者道德责任的建立、价值敏感性设计以及建立算法使用的法律规范为其主要的建构进路。通过推动算法伦理的实现,有助于使算法更好地为人类服务。     

和谐:一种新的伦理视野

单向伦理只强调人类的中心地位,把人类看作惟一的价值主体或衡量其他存在有无价值以及价值大小的尺度,只要求其他存在对人类应有的服务功能,而漠视人类对其他存在必须承担的责任,因而,实际上是一种"霸王伦理";双向不对称伦理虽然扩展了价值视野,实现了单向到双向的升级,但是,由于认为人类与其他存在的价值从而所担负的义务是不对等的,因而是一种不对称伦理,或称失衡伦理;而作者基于和谐发展观而提出的和谐伦理观则既承认万有存在对人类的服务功能,又关注人类对万有存在应负有的责任,认为人类与万有存在之间存在着一种和谐的双向度伦理关系,是对等的价值实体.从单向伦理、双向不对称伦理到双向和谐伦理,是伦理学合乎逻辑的演进.和谐伦理并非高不可攀,而是每个现实的人经过努力随时可以达到的境界.     

Aristotle, US Public Diplomacy, and the Cold War: The Work of Carnes Lord

Carnes Lord is an eminent Aristotelian scholar who has since the mid-1970s intermittently occupied positions within the United States government. This article considers the linkages between his writings on Aristotle and the standpoints he has adopted when in government, with particular reference to the period in the early 1980s when he fulfilled an important role in developing a public diplomacy and information strategy against the Soviet Union. Attention is given to Lord’s interpretation and application, in both his writings and his policy-making, of several key aspects of Aristotle’s political thought, such as rhetoric, regimes, and education. The influence of Leo Strauss on Lord’s thinking is also taken into account.     

技术伦理与形而上学--试论尤纳斯《责任原理》

1979年,尤纳斯(1903—1993)发表了他的《责任原理》一书。20多年来,书中提出的惊世骇俗的观点已经产生了很大影咱,亦引起不少争论。按照尤纳斯的看法,在现代技术社会,人类的群体行为已经发生了质的变化。技术已不单纯是改善人类生活、促使人类进步的工具,技术造成的“厄运”已经威胁整个人类与自然。人类征服自然的目的已不再是保护自身免遭来自大自然的威胁。伦理学以人的行为为对象。行为涉及的范围,特别是行为的性质的变化要求伦理学做出相应的回答。为此,尤纳斯认为传统的伦理学已不能适应人类今天面对的新的情况,康德的只问动机不问后果的动机伦理亦显得苍白无力。取而代之的应该是以“责任”为中心的道德标准。责任的对象则包括自然界与未来人类。更甚之,尤纳斯认为人类有义务恪守这一原理,因为自然界有其自身的尊严与价值,如同一个嗷嗷待哺的婴儿以自己的简单存在呼唤成年人的保护那样。尤纳斯提出的具体要求似乎是明确的,理论上却含有一系列哲学上难以解决的问题：从简单的真实描写,哪怕是对世界末日的描写,如何引伸出改变这一状况的道德要求?人类为什么要继续存在?怎样理解自然界的自身尊严与价值?如果自然界有其自身价值,其价值目的又是什么?这样的话,怎样解释自然科学研究中的价值中立?为了回答这些问题,则必须借助于某种形式的形而上学、本体论甚至神学。尤纳斯的责任伦理实际上是带有信仰性质的本体伦理。最后还有一个实践的问题。在这方面,单靠哲学家与伦理学家提出的理论显然还是不够的。     

发展伦理学的哲学基础

近代哲学的"发展天然合理论"导致了发展观的价值危机;而把"能够做"看成一定是"应当做"的,又必然导致发展观上的伦理危机.主体性哲学无限夸大了人在自然界面前的主体地位,造成了自然危机和人类生存危机.发展伦理学正是反思、约束和规范人的发展实践的新伦理学.     

Meaning and Reference in Aristotle’s Concept of the Linguistic Sign

To Aristotle, spoken words are symbols, not of objects in the world, but of our mental experiences related to these objects. Presently there are two major strands of interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign. First, there is the structuralist account offered by Coseriu (Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie. Von den Anfängen bis Rousseau, 2003 [1969], pp. 65–108) whose interpretation is reminiscent of the Saussurean sign concept. A second interpretation, offered by Lieb (in: Geckeler (Ed.) Logos Semantikos: Studia Linguistica in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu 1921–1981, 1981) and Weidemann (in: Schmitter (Ed.) Geschichte der Sprachtheorie 2. Sprachtheorien der abendländischen Antike, 1991), says that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is similar to the one presented in Ogden and Richard’s (The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism, 1970 [1923]) semiotic triangle. This paper starts off with an introductory outline of the so-called phýsei-thései discussion which started during presocratic times and culminated in Plato’s Cratylus. Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is to be regarded as a solution to the stalemate position reached in the Cratylus. Next, a discussion is offered of both Coseriu’s and Lieb’s analysis. We submit that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign shows features of both Saussure’s and Ogden and Richards’s sign concept but that it does not exclusively predict one of the two. We argue that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is based on three different relations which together evince his teleological as well empiricist point of view: one internal (symbolic) relation and two external relations, i.e. a likeness relation and a relation katà synthéken.     

Aristotle’s Difficult Relationship With Modern Economic Theory

This paper reviews Aristotle’s problematic relationship with modern economic theory. It argues that in terms of value and income distribution theory, Aristotle should probably be seen as a precursor to neither classical nor neoclassical economic thought. Indeed, there are strong arguments to be made that Aristotle’s views are completely at odds with all modern economic theory, since, among other things, he was not necessarily concerned with flexible market prices, opposed the use of money to acquire more money, and did not think that the unintended consequences of human activity were generally beneficial. The paper argues however, that this interpretation goes too far. The Benthamite neoclassical theory of choice can be seen as a dumbing down of Aristotle’s theory, applicable to animals, not humans. Adam Smith and Karl Marx were deeply influenced by Aristotle’s work and both started their main economic works with Aristotle: Smith ultimately rejecting, and Marx ultimately developing Aristotle’s views of the use of money to acquire more money. Possibilities for the future development of a new Aristotelian Economics are explored.     

泰奥弗拉斯特:植物学之父与他的传世之作

古希腊哲学家泰奥弗拉斯特是亚里士多德的大弟子,不论是其学术成就还是人生轨迹都深受导师影响。作为吕克昂第二任管理者,他投身于亚里士多德的学术与教育事业,勤勉教学,潜心研究,同时努力改善学校的基础建设,真正将漫步学派发扬光大。在西方植物学史上,泰奥弗拉斯特因其两部存世植物著作被誉为"植物学之父";书中远超前人的植物知识为之后18个世纪的植物研究奠定了发展基调。身为一代学术大家,泰奥弗拉斯特尊师重道,著作等身,为后人留下了宝贵的精神财富。     

商业伦理的形而上学基础

考虑到形而上学和伦理的原则是人类所有理论知识与实践选择的首要而有效的方法,通过考察古代对形而上学和商业伦理的哲学反思,人自身、人的才能和商业伦理,西塞罗、亚里士多德和中世纪关于人自身的反思,训练智力和伦理美德的商业教育,从无创造、道成肉身和现代商业伦理,基督教、有限管理和现代商业伦理,现代企业的成功及商业伦理等,揭示出健康的政治经济秩序是建立在好的形而上学原则之上的.     

The Care of Our Hybrid Selves: Ethics in Times of Technical Mediation

What can the art of living after Foucault contribute to ethics in relation to the mediation of human existence by technology? To develop the relation between technical mediation and ethics, firstly the theme of technical mediation is elaborated in line with Foucault’s notion of ethical problematization. Every view of what technology does to us at the same time expresses an ethical concern about technology. The contemporary conception of technical mediation tends towards the acknowledgement of ongoing hybridization, not ultimately good or bad but ambivalent, which means for us the challenge of taking care of ourselves as hybrid beings. Secondly, the work of Foucault provides elements for imagining this care for our hybrid selves, notably his notions of freedom as a practice and of the care of the self. A conclusions about technical mediation and ethics is that whereas the approaches of the delegation of morality to technology by Latour and mediated morality by Verbeek see technical mediation of behavior and moral outlook as an answer in ethics, this should rather be considered the problem that ethics is about.     

物质与乌托邦——恩斯特·布洛赫对物质概念的理解与重构

在回溯亚里士多德的质料及其潜能中,布洛赫把物质理解为"客观-现实的可能性",在批判继承亚里士多德左翼传统的世界质料、普遍质料概念中,布洛赫进一步把物质规定为"过程质料"。通过把亚里士多德的物质概念与黑格尔的辩证法有机结合起来,布洛赫辩证地叙述了趋向乌托邦全体的全世界的历史进程。在他那里,物质的开放性与辩证法的开放性构成乌托邦的全体的基础。在此意义上,正是亚里士多德的物质概念与黑格尔的辩证法孕育诞生了布洛赫乌托邦的希望哲学。     

Pragmatism and the Practical Relevance of Truth

In this article, I argue that pragmatism has something to gain from returning once more to the question of truth, and acknowledging the truth of the existence of Being and its elements. The practical relevance of this insight is shown by my proposition for a practical hermeneutic social scientific method which logically follows from the truth of Being. The method is compatible with the inevitability of subjective judgments in any kind of scientific research, as well as with many pragmatist insights. It is my hope that pragmatists will be willing to follow their own adagium and conceive of this confrontation with difference as an opportunity to re-assess their views.     

哈维“生理学革命”的社会历史背景

17世纪哈维的生理学革命吸收了亚里士多德的循环思想、对心脏的认识和目的论思想，建立在盖仑的解剖和实验方法、以及由此得到的概念系统和材料基础之上。近代的经验论、数学方法和机械论思想都为其提供了社会基础。哈维是西方传统医学向近代医学转变的枢纽式人物，其革命是累积的结果，对于科学思想形成应从社会历史中寻找原因，其中“错误”的思想也不容忽视。     

The Jesuits and the Method of Indivisibles

Alexander’s Infinitesimal is right to argue that the Jesuits had a chilling effect on Italian mathematics, but I question his account of the Jesuit motivations for suppressing indivisibles. Alexander alleges that the Jesuits’ intransigent commitment to Aristotle and Euclid explains their opposition to the method of indivisibles. A different hypothesis, which Alexander doesn’t pursue, is a conflict between the method of indivisibles and the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. This is a pity, for the conflict with the Eucharist has advantages over the Jesuit commitment to Aristotle and Euclid. The method of indivisibles was a method that developed in the course of the seventeenth century, and those who developed ‘beyond the Alps’ relied upon Aristotelian and Euclidean ideals. Alexander’s failure to recognize the importance of Aristotle and Euclid for the development of the method of indivisibles arises from an unwarranted conflation of indivisibles and infinitesimals (Sect. 2). Once indivisibles and infinitesimals are distinguished, we observe that the development of the method of indivisibles exhibits an unmistakable sympathy for Aristotle and Euclid (Sect. 3). Thus, it makes sense to consider an alternative explanation for the Jesuit abhorrence of indivisibles. And indeed, indivisibles but not infinitesimals conflict with the doctrine of the Eucharist, the central dogma of the Church (Sect. 4).     

工程伦理教育在工科通识教育中的作用和实践

随着国家发展进入新时代,如何在工程领域培养一批又一批具备能够满足人民日益增长的美好生活需要的价值观和技能的人才,则成为解决新的主要社会矛盾的关键。在技能和价值观二者之中,价值观的教育和养成更为重要,难度更大。学界正在推行通识教育,力图通过通识教育培养工科学生对"真、善、美"的鉴赏力和理想追求。然而,由于通识教育目标不明确等诸多因素,工科的通识教育效果尚不理想,出现了通识教育与专业教育脱节的现象。为此,我们在化学工程教育中开设了具有中国特色的《化学工程伦理》研究生必修课程,试图将它作为专业教育和通识教育之间的桥梁,期望能为培养适应新时代要求、具有全球胜任力和竞争力的一流工程人才探索一条新路径。     

Promises of Presence

My review of Ike Kamphof’s “Webcams to Save Nature: Online Space as Affective and Ethical Space” focuses on the question how the engagement of the spectator of the described websites is temporally structured and how the discrepancy between the instantaneity of affective response and the duration of moral engagement is solved. I propose to draw on Alexander Nehamas’ philosophy of beauty as an in-between, bringing affect and ethics closer together.     

The God Concept: Aristotle and the Philosophical Tradition

Before beginning a paper on metaphysics, it is wise to acknowledge the paper’s own “metaphysical” assumptions. In what follows, we must bear in mind that the history of philosophy is as interpretively diverse as it is long. We will begin with the premise that Metaphysics is indeed a foundational science. We will posit that Aristotle’s corpus is unified; that is, that Aristotle can be read as a “systematic” philosopher. Moreover, we will assume that the history of philosophy is itself a unity. If we posit such, “philosophy” can be read as a comprehensible continuity: a certainly contestable position. We must bear in mind that similitude is decidedly not identity; however, similitude does imply a certain conceptual correlation, one which, when pressed, may yield interesting, if not unexpected, results. Thus, we will travel at lightning speed through what took a snail’s pace to develop, “mapping,” so to speak, the structure of the unmoved mover of Aristotle’s Metaphysics (1941) onto the traditional historical divisions of the history of philosophy. We will begin with Aristotle himself in the Ancient period, move to Averroes (the Ibn-Rushd of this paper) in the Medieval period, focus on Descartes and Spinoza as Modern thinkers and, finally, end in Heidegger and Sartre in Contemporary philosophy. This is philosophy with a capital “P,” which may or may not be the reader’s preferred position, let alone the writer’s. But, for our purposes here, it is, nonetheless, inevitable.