Individual creativity has been the focus of long-term research in creative industries. However, few studies have explored the impact on individual creativity from social factors. At the same time, the influence of individual creativity on the existence of subsequent factors in the creative industry is also worthy of further investigation. From a social standpoint, this research aims to explore how social norms affect individual creativity, and how individual creativity affects subsequent leadership. The present research takes creative entrepreneurs in creative enterprises (...) as the research objects, and the structural equation model is used to analyze the data obtained from 202 valid questionnaires. Besides, the mediating effect of individual creativity between social norms and individual leadership is verified. The results show that social norms can effectively promote the generation of individual creativity that has a positive impact on both transactional or transformational leadership. It is revealed that social norms are effective tools for enhancing creativity, answering the question of how creative ideas are transformed into creative work and leadership. Individual creativity plays a mediating role between social norms and individual leadership. (shrink)

本书收30多篇文章,共分6部分:“中西哲学会通篇”、“审美意识新论篇”、“语言的哲学思考篇”、“人生境界解析篇”、“杂感琐谈篇”和“学术自述篇”。.

本书收30多篇文章,共分6部分:“中西哲学会通篇”、“审美意识新论篇”、“语言的哲学思考篇”、“人生境界解析篇”、“杂感琐谈篇”和“学术自述篇”。.

Early in Aristotle’s terminology, and ever since, “essence” has been conceived as having two meanings, namely “universality” and “individuality”. According to the tradition of thought that has dominated throughout the history of Western philosophy, “essence” unequivocally refers to “universality”. As a matter of fact, however, “universality” cannot cover Aristotle’s definition and formulation of “essence”: Essence is what makes a thing “happen to be this thing.” “Individuality” should be the deep meaning of “essence”. By means of an analysis of some relevant (...) Western thoughts and a review of cultural realities, it can be concluded that the difference between the attitudes toward things of the natural sciences and the humane sciences mainly lies in the fact that the former focus on the pursuit of universal regularity, whereas the latter go after the value and significance of human life. The movement from natural things to cultural things is a process in which essence shifts from universality to individuality. It is the author’s contention that what should be stressed in the fields of human culture and society is the construction of an ideal society that is “harmonious yet not identical”, on the basis of respecting and developing individual peculiarity and otherness. (shrink)

Early in Aristotle's terminology, and ever since, "essence" has been conceived as having two meanings, namely "universality" and "individuality". According to the tradition of thought that has dominated throughout the history of Western philosophy, "essence" unequivocally refers to "universality". As a matter of fact, however, "universality" cannot cover Aristotle's definition and formulation of "essence": Essence is what makes a thing "happen to be this thing." "Individuality" should be the deep meaning of "essence". By means of an analysis of some relevant (...) Western thoughts and a review of cultural realities, it can be concluded that the difference between the attitudes toward things of the natural sciences and the humane sciences mainly lies in the fact that the former focus on the pursuit of universal regularity, whereas the latter go after the value and significance of human life. The movement from natural things to cultural things is a process in which essence shifts from universality to individuality. It is the author's contention that what should be stressed in the fields of human culture and society is the construction of an ideal society that is "harmonious yet not identical", on the basis of respecting and developing individual peculiarity and otherness. /// "本质" 最早在亚里士多德的用语中包含有两重含义: 是指 "普遍的东 西" ("共相")，一是指 "个体的东西" ("这个")。在西方哲学史上民期占统治 地位的思想片面地认为: "本质" 就是指 "普遍的东西"。但实际上"普遍的东 西" 并不能涵盖亚里士多德对 "本质" 的界定和表述t 本质是使一事物 "恰恰地是 这个事物"的东西。"本质" 的深层含义应是 "个体性"。通过对西方一些相关思 想观点的分析和文化现实的考察，可以得出结论z 自然科学与人文科学对待事物的 态度的区别在于z 前者重普遍性规律的追求，后者重个体性的人生价值意义的追求。 从自然物到文化物是一个由以普遍性为本质到以个体性为本质的转化过程。在人文 社会领域应该强调的是z 在尊重和发扬个人的独特性和差异性的基础上，建立 "和而 不同"的理想社会。. (shrink)

: Studies of Chinese dialectical materialism have long neglected the important philosophical dimension of Hegelian thought and its influence on Chinese Marxism. This essay examines the work of Zhang Shiying of Beijing University, whose studies of Hegel's works on dialectical logic in the 1950s sought to clarify the nature of Hegel's speculative dialectic and its relation to dialectical materialism. Like Lenin before him, Zhang believed that Hegel's works on logic offered a more profound reflection on materialism than (...) had previously been recognized by Marxist critics of German idealism. Zhang's sensitive reading of both Hegel's Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia Logic highlights the problem of the speculative dialectic and negativity. Examined here is Zhang's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic in light of contemporary accounts of the role of Hegelian negativity in poststructuralist thought. (shrink)

Studies of Chinese dialectical materialism have long neglected the important philosophical dimension of Hegelian thought and its influence on Chinese Marxism. This essay examines the work of Zhang Shiying of Beijing University, whose studies of Hegel's works on dialectical logic in the 1950s sought to clarify the nature of Hegel's speculative dialectic and its relation to dialectical materialism. Like Lenin before him, Zhang believed that Hegel's works on logic offered a more profound reflection on materialism than had (...) previously been recognized by Marxist critics of German idealism. Zhang's sensitive reading of both Hegel's Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia Logic highlights the problem of the speculative dialectic and negativity. Examined here is Zhang's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic in light of contemporary accounts of the role of Hegelian negativity in poststructuralist thought. (shrink)

本书共八章,分为上下两篇。上篇围绕张先生所提出的新哲学观而进行阐述;下篇论述张先生关于中西哲学、文化之发展及其比较研究。.

Zhang Shiying 張世英 has been widely acclaimed as a master of philosophy in mainland China. His new claim of “the myriad things as one body” remains greatly influential in philosophy and aesthetics. It cannot be categorized under Marxism, Western philosophy, or traditional Chinese philosophy, because it stands on its own right. As a creative synthesizing of the three traditions, Zhang’s claim answers some important and immediate problems that China is facing. It is a pity that this claim (...) seems unknown to the West. This article tries to introduce two crucial parts of the claim: its ontology and its theory of “spheres of living”. (shrink)

自己思考過後找到的答案，往往跟自己有關。 這個屬於自己的答案，當然比別人給的更特別，更好。__褚士瑩 褚士瑩師事法國哲學老師奧斯卡‧柏尼菲，從這一位「非典型」老師身上經歷了前所未有的思考練習與震撼教育。 世界上這麼多東西可以學，為什麼一定要學哲學？而且值得學的老師那麼多，為什麼偏偏是奧斯卡？ 褚士瑩形容奧斯卡是「搶走禮物的聖誕老人」，甚至因為幫忙安排諮商行程，竟然收到律師函，成為被告上法庭…… 但是褚士瑩卻在學習哲學思考的過程中，變成一個被「挑戰」問題時超開心，被「質疑」問題時興奮無比的人。 問，為什麼人生不能想做什麼就做什麼？ 問，為什麼學思考，就等於學做人？ 問，為什麼被挑戰、被質疑，反而會高興？ 問，為什麼謹慎小心不好？ 問，為什麼有錢人不會成為物質的奴隸？ 問，為什麼我不能幫爸媽安排他們的人生？ 問，為什麼要學習「享受」問題，而不是「解決」問題？ 人生階段百百問，但是如果我們開始動腦思考，其實就已經踏入改變自己的第一步。 《我為什麼去法國上哲學課？》實踐篇最大的特點在於，本書將強調如何使用思考的技巧，幫助我們每一天的生活。而最好的方法就是從觀察開始，任何生活裡的小事，都可以去問「為什麼會這樣？」「為什麼會有這個現象？」 不論是跟人一句短短的對話，還是我們聽到的一句話，都可以觀察自己的反應與情緒。 如此一來「每一件事情都可以想，世界上沒有任何一件不可以想的事情，從此以後我沒有任何一個時刻是無聊的，因為就算聽到很無聊的話，也可以觀察這個人為什麼會說這麼無聊的話？他真的相信說的這些話嗎？如果他不相信 ，為什麼他覺得他要說呢？」 本書也等於透過實例舉證，讓讀者像是親臨「哲學諮商」的實境，在每一個生活上會產生的問題，如人與人之間的溝通、對未來的徬徨與抉擇、金錢的價值觀，最重要的是釐清複雜的人際關係，學習相處與成長。當我們將問題透 過「哲學思考」來一層一層推理，最終我們都回到最原始的關鍵上，那就是：「我是一個 什麼樣的人？」「我認識我自己嗎？」「我了解自己嗎？」「我愛自己嗎？」 本書特色 工作無法趁心如意，對未來茫然不知方向，到底該轉職？還是繼續忍耐熬？ 你其實想大吼：人生難道不能想做什麼就做什麼嗎？ 越想完美經營人脈，越抓不到重點，你有沒有想過自己對「人際關係」很貪心？ 好了，現在下決心脫離舒適圈，好像自由高飛了， 但你也許在「更保守的國外」原地踏步繞圈圈…… 以上問號絕對不是「跟著感覺走」就能夠得到答案，也不是別人的答案，可以先偷來用。 你如何找到屬於自己的路？ 哲學思考實踐→尋找適合自己的思考方法 ★用第三者的角度來看自己。 ★學習享受問題，而不是解決問題。 ★善用「刪去法」知道自己不要什麼。 ★「跟著感覺走」不是真思考。 ★人生充滿未知，請不要過度準備。 ★把每一個意外，都當成一個禮物。 ★不斷練習，養成有紀律的思考習慣。.

★2017年好書大家讀「年度最佳少年兒童讀物獎」 ★第73梯次好書大家讀入選圖書 (國小高年級~國中適讀) 經歷思考的強烈颱風，心甘情願把自己打掉重練…… 法國哲學圈的頭痛人物──奧斯卡‧柏尼菲 出版暢銷全世界的哲學童書繪本，一個難搞的老頑童 自家設立「哲學踐行學院」，褚士瑩成為入門弟子的挑戰衝擊…… 人氣俠客律師 呂秋遠 專文推薦 「思考不需要是天賦！只要透過學習，任何人都可以變得會思考。 面對人生、工作的瓶頸，變成一個不害怕思考、不害怕問題的人。」__褚士瑩 褚士瑩寫作超過20年，每年演講場次逼近上百場，NGO國際經驗15年以上， 有一天發現再也無法繼續工作下去了…… 為了突破瓶頸，他跟著法國老師奧斯卡‧柏尼菲上哲學課。 結果上課第一天完完全全被打回原形！ 沒有任何課程規劃，沒有特定主題，從早上到午夜，一切要自主思考。 你沉默，你答非所問，你模稜兩可，就會被老師追問得「體無完膚」…… 為什麼要誠實表達自己？為什麼要犀利面對自我？ 知道一點點，究竟是知道還是不知道？說不知道會很丟臉嗎？ 愛你一點點，到底是愛還是不愛？說不愛會很傷人嗎？ 離開同溫層的第一步？是學會說真話？ 這一趟魔鬼訓練的震撼，一切從頭拆解！ 褚士瑩突然想起在幼稚園的舞台上，群體中那個傲慢的自己； 從咀嚼說出的每一個字，驚覺過去引以為豪的禮貌用語是思考敵人； 從身體展現的每一個動作，挖掘隱藏的自我，承認無知是獲得知識的開始； 雖然比想像還要困難好幾倍，割裂慣性思維千萬次， 但思考沒有「無痛分娩」，是可以找到幾條清晰路徑， 塑造自己，延伸自己，最後大喊：我要帶著哲學活下去！重新啟程！.

中国儒学缄默维度是在语言关闭的缄默中，转向静的深度体证，具有渊与根两个特征，集约表达为“藏心于渊，美厥灵根”，诗意表达为“氤氲一气似初春”。本书从孔子观周见金人“三缄其口”开始，以方以智证成太极丸春结 束，选取颜回、言偃、扬雄、周敦颐、朱熹、杨简、文天祥、王阳明及其后学胡直与万廷言、刘宗周、王夫之等重要儒者，溯源至孟子、《易传》、庄子、屈原四个先秦流派的展开与互动，围绕罕言与雅言、深静与真动、冲然与 恬愉、主静与持敬、艺术大美与道德至善等重点问题，挖掘中国儒学缄默维度的深蕴及特质，并展望其在现代语境的展开，重写中国儒学史。.

Tianyi Zhang offers in this study an innovative philosophical reconstruction of Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī's (d. 1191) Illuminationism. Commonly portrayed as either a theosophist or an Avicennian in disguise, Suhrawardīappears here as an original and hardheaded philosopher who adopts mysticism only as a tool of philosophical inquiry. Zhang makes use of Plato's cave allegory to explain Suhrawardī's Illuminationist project. Focusing on three areas-the theory of presential knowledge, the ontological discussion of mental considerations, and Light Metaphysics-Zhang convincingly reveals the (...) Nominalist and Existential nature of Illuminationism, and thereby proposes a new way of understanding how Suhrawardī's central philosophical ideas cohere. (shrink)

This book reinterprets classical Chinese philosophical tradition along the conceptual line of human dignity. Through extensive textual evidence, it illustrates that classical Confucianism, Mohism and Daoism contained rich notions of dignity, which laid the foundation for human rights and political liberty in China, even though, historically, liberal democracy failed to grow out of the authoritarian soil in China. The book critically examines the causes that might have prevented the classical schools from developing a liberal tradition, while affirming their positive contributions (...) to the human dignity concept. Analysing the inadequacies of the western concept of human dignity, the text covers relevant teachings of Kongzi, Mengzi, Xunzi, Mozi, Laozi and Zhuangzi (in comparison with Rousseau). While the Confucian notions of humanity (Ren), righteousness (Yi), and gentleman (Junzi) bear most directly on the conception of dignity, Mohism and Daoism provide salutary corrections to the ossification of the orthodox Confucian practice (Li). (shrink)

Truth pluralism is the view that there is more than one truth property. The strong version of it (i.e. strong pluralism) further contends that no truth property is shared by all true propositions. In this paper, I help strong pluralism solve two pressing problems concerning mixed discourse: the problem of mixed inferences (PI) and the problem of mixed compounds (PC). According to PI, strong pluralism is incompatible with the truth- preservation notion of validity; according to PC, strong pluralists cannot find (...) any appropriate truth property for mixed compound propositions, whose atomic constituents are from different domains of discourse (e.g., <sky is blue and chocolate is tasty>). I argue that the strong pluralist is motivated to take the truth predicate in truth-involving universal statements to be deflationary to avoid the two pressing problems. Such a move entails that the truth predicate in the platitude of validity (V) for any argument, it is valid if and only if necessarily its conclusion is true when its premises are all true does not denote any substantive truth property. Instead, it is merely an expressive device to help people generalize instances of (V) to (V). Analogous stories hold for the truth predicate in the platitudes of compound (e.g., conjunction). The upshot is that, the strong pluralist can solve PI and PC by further conceding that mixed compounds are true/false in a deflationary way. (shrink)

In “Sidgwick on Bentham: the ‘Double Aspect’ of Utilitarianism”, Schofield argued that Bentham did not regard his psychological theory as part of his utilitarianism and that natural benevolence is at his disposal to mitigate the problem of the “double aspect” of utilitarianism. This paper argues that Bentham regarded his psychological theory as part of his utilitarianism and that, in a manner quite distinct from an internal, benevolence approach, he took advantage of self‐preference and thus adopted a self‐preference and artificial means‐based (...) approach, thereby still maintaining an internal approach supported by external, institutional contrivance. In so doing, he argued first that self‐preference could add to the greatest happiness; second, that benevolence would tend to facilitate the achievement of the greatest happiness, with the consequence that he endorsed the artificial cultivation of benevolence; and third, that the artificial means of the junction‐of‐interests‐prescribing principle should be adopted to bridge the gap between self‐preference and the greatest happiness. Sidgwick failed to appreciate the depth and sophistication of Bentham's logic. (shrink)

In his paper, “A Causal Argument for Physicalism” (Zhong, 2023), Zhong presents a novel argument for non-reductive physicalism (which he calls “A2”), based on the causal argument for reductive physicalism (which he calls “A1”), and claims that A2 is better than A1 since the premises in A2 are more plausible than those in A1. In this paper, I will argue that A2 fails to be a sound argument for non-reductive physicalism, or even physicalism per se, because the premises in A2 (...) can be fulfilled by the kind of dualism which claims that the physical event (P), the mental event (M), and their effect (E) form a causal chain and that P and M are simultaneous causes. Also, I will argue that we do have ways to strengthen A2 to block the aforementioned problem. But the only plausible way to strengthen the argument is to appeal to the conservation of energy and momentum. And this favors A1 more than A2. So, I conclude that A2 is not better than A1, and a causal argument for physicalism still naturally favors reductive physicalism. (shrink)