论送别诗创作的模式化倾向——以岑参送别诗为个案

我国古代有"饯别必赋诗"的送别传统。到了唐代,送别诗的交际功能逐渐加强,已不仅仅限于"传情言志",而使其充分发挥了"可以群"的社会交往功能。在集体创作的场合下,为了应酬的需要,文士们必须储存一套可供临时发挥、及时套用的模式。岑参的送别诗正具此特点。他的探题分韵所赋之作,在形式和内容上都形成了模式化倾向。在形式上,表现为"三部式"、"两部式"。内容上,在语言、意象、描写场景等方面都有一定类型化表现。可见,送别诗的模式化倾向在初盛唐已初露端倪,这为中晚唐送别诗创作走向模式化奠定了基础。     

What to Make of the Liberal Paradox?

Sen's Liberal Paradox has received a good deal of attention in the literature. However, it is worth re-opening the discussion since the solutions offered so far have serious problems and since there is more to say about the nature of the problem displayed by the Liberal Paradox. I propose a new solution to the paradox in the following sense: First, I argue that its range of applicability is not very broad. Second, there is nothing paradoxical about a conflict of the principles involved in the Liberal Paradox. (Nagel's thesis of the ``fragmentation of value' is important to make this point.) Third, I make a recommendation about how to remove conflicts when they occur in a restricted class of cases. For the other cases, no recommendation of similar appeal is available. But in the light of the first point, the availability of a generally applicable recommendation was not to be expected.     

Rules, Social Ontology and Collective Identity

Mainstream game theory explains cooperation as the outcome of the interaction of agents who permanently pursue their individual goals. Amartya Sen argues instead that cooperation can only be understood by positing a type of rule-following behaviour that can be (and often is) out of phase with the pursuit of individual goals, due to the existence of a collective identity. However, Sen does not clarify the ontological preconditions for the type of social behaviour he describes. I will argue that Sen's account of collective identity can be best interpreted in the light of John Searle's notion of collective intentionality, while Sen's explanation of rule-following behavior and agency is best understood using the critical realist transformational model of social activity.     

有罪答辩与量刑减让

在英美等国 ,对有罪答辩的量刑减让是一项总的法律原则 ,但有罪答辩与量刑减让之间并不存在必然的因果关系 ,对被告人的量刑减让以及减让的程度仍属于法官的一项自由裁量权。与此同时 ,从心理推导过程来看 ,被告人有罪答辩决定的作出 ,又在于对量刑减让的预期 ,这一决定的自愿性和正当性有赖于在量刑减让信息的传输和处理上的合理性。我国传统意义上的坦白不同于有罪答辩 ,对坦白者从宽并不具有正当性 ,即使未来的有罪答辩制度得以确立 ,其所产生的量刑减让效应也是受限的