Liang Qichao was a leading political thinker and publicist. His manifesto, On the New People, was published serially in Japan, where Liang—like many other progressive intellectuals in the late Qing—lived and worked for a decade in order to avoid governmental suppression. The present essay was published in 1902 as part of On the New People. Liang began writing about rights as early as 1896; they came to occupy a prominent place in his theorizing after he arrived in Japan in (...) 1898. He was influenced by the Social Darwinist ideas of Kato Hiroyuki, which can be seen most clearly in Liang's 1899 essay "The Right of the Strongest." Although some of these ideas are still present in the current essay, Liang had by this time developed a more complex position, partly through reading and interpreting the ideas of Rudolph von Jhering , a pioneering German legal theorist whose influence on Liang was significant, as Liang himself declares early in this essay. (shrink)

本書以南宋哲學家朱熹的窮理工夫論為研究對象，旨在通過溯源式的檢討、理論本身的檢討、展望式的檢討等三個向度，探究此一學說的理論效力。 書中首先勾勒朱熹工夫論的輪廓，剖析「工夫」與「工夫論」之要義，探討窮理工夫論的出現，其立基是否穩固；即朱熹自「中和舊說」轉向「中和新說」的窮理工夫論，本身是否有充分的理據？其次，作為修養工夫樞紐的「窮 理」，本身既屬於「知」的活動，則它如何保證道德實踐之「行」？最後，立足於現代，朱熹的窮理之學要如何解答我們所面臨的難題？對我們的未來又能帶來什麼樣的啟示？ 期望透過盡可能準確且周延的詮釋，以及在三種向度下嚴格而深入的理論探討，讀者能較為全面地理解朱熹的窮理工夫論，以推進對朱熹哲學的研究，並為其進一步參與普遍哲學議題的討論，打下新的基礎。.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 63.1 (2002) 1-17 [Access article in PDF] What if the Father Commits a Crime? Rui Zhu Apparently, Socrates and Confucius respond similarly to the question if a son should turn in his father in the case of the father's misdemeanor. When Euthyphro, flaring his pride of his moral impartiality, tells Socrates that he is on his way to report his father because he (...) has thrown one of the household slaves into a ditch and left him bound there until he was dead, Socrates says, "Good Heaven! Certainly, Euthyphro, most men would not know how they could do this and be right. It is not the part of anyone to do this, but of one who is far advanced in wisdom." 1According to Socrates, only a man of high wisdom knows how to prosecute his father righteously, but Euthyphro does not appear to have this wisdom. When his interlocutor observes that an upright man in his state would bear witness against his father if he misappropriates a sheep, Confucius contradicts the interlocutor's understanding of uprightness by speaking in a matter-of-fact tone: "In my country the upright men are of quite another sort. A father will cover up for his son, and a son his father—which incidentally does involve a sort of up—rightness." 2Confucius stands on the same line with Socrates but seems the more radical of the two. Socrates does not directly refute Euthyphro and only suggests that he make sure he understands what he is doing before going any further. Socrates is not only typically Socratic—indirect and suggestive—but also sounds so reasonable that Euthyphro appears in contrast to be a reckless youth who harbors [End Page 1] only a faint understanding of morality. Confucius's response is more rigid, for he categorically dismisses an act of the Euthyphroian kind. He demands that father and son cover up for each other in the case of either one's guilt. Compared to Socrates, Confucius advocates the position that seems a little too strong and leaves no room for justice, while Socrates does not have that problem with justice. This is how we feel about Socrates and Confucius on our first impression. The prima facie observations that we make from the remarks of Socrates and Confucius seem both plain and unproblematic.By embedding these remarks into their respective social or philosophical cultures, this paper will show that our previous observations are not quite accurate. The apparent affinity of the Socratic and Confucian stances belies different underlying moral philosophies. We want to use their comments as bridges to explore the early Greek and Confucian ethics and show how different a picture we see after things are examined within their traditions.The issue of a possible father-son conflict may be treated as a case study of the early Greek (the Heroic era until the age of Socrates) and early Confucian (Confucius and Mencius) morals. There is a strong theme in the early Greek morals that allows, or sometimes demands, a son such as Euthyphro to prosecute his father for the sake of justice, because justice, instead of love (philein) or filial piety, is the governing principle in the early Greek ethics. Confucian ethics is founded on love (human-heartedness), which in turn is extended from the love between father and son. All moral principles including justice are derived from this extension of love. The mutual love of father and son then becomes the governing principle in the case of Confucianism. A Guilty Father: The Greek Motif The question, "What if the father commits a crime?" has a certain realistic aroma to a boy coming of age in the Hesiodic Greek world. That father has to be overcome by son before some relief from strife becomes possible is a familiar theme in Greek literature. In Hesiod's Theogony, Uranus (the sky) incurs hatred from all his newborn children since he hides them in their mother Gaia's womb and does not let them return to the light, for no reason... (shrink)

Technology has a pervasive and profound effect on the contemporary world, and engineers play a central role in all aspects of technological development. In order to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, engineers must be morally committed and equipped to grapple with ethical dilemmas they confront.

本书通过比较研究揭示出,在生存主义哲学和道家思想对人之生存结构的理解方面,存在着深层的共识,这是二者之间展开深度对话的"客观基础".本书分为两大部分,第一部分,包括本研究的第一章和第二章,分别对海德格 尔存在与时间和萨特存在与虚无中的生存主义思想加以呈现,诠释,以期读者能够对生存主义哲学的"标本式"理论有所了解,并为后文的比较研究提供一定的理论铺垫.第三到八章,对道家思想与生存主义思想展开多维比较. 主要围绕"无"在生存结构中的地位和作用来展开,并努力揭示出,生存主义哲学和道家思想在人的"带无生存"这一点上,有着极为醒目的相通之处.然而,在此基础上产生的价值导向,却表现出同样醒目的分梳.通过分析道 家与生存主义哲学思想上重叠性与互补性,可能为融合东西方智慧,尤其是吸收中国传统道家智慧的现代生存哲学理论体系的建立提供一定的思想素材和理论参考.

Zhu Xi is the most important of the twelfth-century neo-Confucianists. Some consider him second only to Confucius himself in his importance to Chinese philosophy as a whole, since it is his interpretation of Confucius that has been canonical since his lifetime. This short book, modeled after the Burton Watson "Basic Writings" volumes for Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and Han Feizi, is an accessible, one-volume introduction to Zhu Xi's influential philosophical system designed especially for course use. In "classifying" Zhu Xi's conversations in the (...) Classified Conversations of Master Zhu, Li Jingde dedicated the first thirteen chapters to conversations explaining his general philosophical system. Readers are introduced to his metaphysics of principle (li), psychophysical stuff (qi), spiritual beings (guishen), human nature (xing), mind-heart (xin), and emotions (qing); and to his program of self-cultivation-that is, the curriculum that Confucians should follow to attain moral perfection. Gardner argues that these chapters constitute the best overview of Zhu Xi's basic philosophical teachings, and selections from them form the basis of his volume. Occasionally, they are supplemented with passages from the Collected Literary Writings of Master Zhu and from Zhu's commentaries on the Classics. (shrink)

In nontheistic moral traditions, there is a typical ethical conundrum concerning the relation between cosmic order and human agency. Within those traditions, it is generally recognized that the universe has its own order and history that are independent of human will. A moral discourse has to find space to accommodate human agency in the midst of the iron grid of cosmic law. Both Confucius and Aurelius use the concept of timeliness (kairos) to resolve the difficult issue. But their philosophies take (...) on divergent paths. By studying their resolutions of the issue, we will be able to appreciate the distinctive nature of their nontheistic moral narratives. (shrink)

¿̆Ơ£̃Œđ̇¿¿̇¿¿̄ʻ¿̆ƯÞ̇ðð̃¿ı̃Ư¿̄ư‌ ̇ʻ¿̃Đ¿̆¿Ư̄Œ¿̄¿¿̆¿¿̄¿¿̈¿ữ¿ı̃Ư¿̆ʻ ð̃ð¿̆¿ı̃¿£̃ ¿̇¿¿̄ð¿̆Ơ¿̈¿¿̇þ, ʻ̄¿¿̈¿ı̌¿¿̌Ư¿̌¿¿̈ðʻ̄¿¿̄ʺơ̄¿¿̇¿¿̈ ¿¿̃Đð̃ð¿̆¿ʹ̈¿¿̄æ¿̃Æ¿̄¿¿̆ʻ¿̄¿Ư̄Œð ̃ð¿̆¿ı̃¿£̃ ð̇đ¿̄Æ¿̆ʻð̃ð¿̆¿ı̃¿£̃ ¿̇¿¿̃ʺ¿̄ơʹ̈¿¿̌‌¿̈¿Ł̈¿ʼ̄Łʹ̈¿ı̃‌¿ ̈¿®̌¿, ¿̃‌¿̈¿¿̈¿ı̃ðʹ̇¿Ư̄Œ¿̄ʻʼ̄¿̆¿ð̃¿¿ ̄£¿̆ʻð̃ð¿̆¿ı̃¿£̃ı̃Ư¿̄ưư̄ł¿̈£¿̇¿ ‌̄¿¿̄ø¿̆¿¿̆Ł. ¿̆Ơ£̃Œ¿̆ƯÞ̇ðð̃¿¿̆ʻð̃ð¿̆¿ı̃¿£̃ ¿̇ ¿¿̇¿ʼ̈ð ̇£¿̄¿¿̆¿¿̆¿¿̄æ¿̇¿¿̆ʹ, ¿̇łƯ̆Þ¿̄ð¿̄¿̄Þ¿̆Ưı̃Ư¿̄ư¿̆ʻð̃ð¿̆ ¿ı̃¿£̃¿̇¿¿̆¿¿̆đ¿̄¿œ̆æ, ̄Þ ̄±¿̆ʻ¿̆ʹð̃ð¿̆¿ı̃¿£̃¿̇¿‌̄¿ ̄¿ ̄¿Ư̆ʹ.

As one of the three systems of China's traditional culture, Daoism has an important place in the history of Chinese philosophy. Based on the ideas of inaction performing all, the Way modeling spontaneity, and the dialectic of you [having, being] and wu [lacking, nonbeing], this article is a systematic exploration of Laozi's philosophy of denial, spontaneity, and atheism, as well as of the deep and lasting influence of his metaphysical principles on all schools of traditional Chinese philosophy.

Abstract In ?On Making an Effort? E. J. Coffman develops what he takes to be a fairly serious problem for Robert Kane's positive theory of free choice, where the concept of efforts of will is pivotal.1 Coffman argues that the plausibility of Kane's libertarian account of free choice ?is inversely proportional to the plausibility of a certain principle of agency? (p. 12). And since the latter is quite plausible, the former is therefore ?at best fairly implausible? (p. 12). In what (...) follows I will show that Coffman's objection is in fact misplaced. Kanean libertarianism not only is in accordance with the essence of the principles of personal responsibility that Coffman advocates, it also affords a more plausible and intelligible account of the sources of personal responsibility superior to the proposed principles. (shrink)