后现代社会范式下教育产业化的哲学思考

在对教育产业化的多年的争论后 ,教育的产业化已经表现出了不以人的意志为转移的特征 ,如何以哲学的视角来审视教育产业化 ,成为当今学术界的重要论题     

试论现代性的哲学观念

现代性的哲学观念是指在近现代哲学中形成的成为整个社会经济、政治和文化现代性的思想基础的哲学精神和哲学意识。现代性最根本的哲学精神是理性意识 ,理性意识的目标和根本功能是达到合理性。近现代哲学在理性意识的指引下形成了三大现代性的哲学观念 :主体性观念、主体间性观念和历史性观念。在三者中 ,主体中心理性和主体间理性只有在历史理性的参与下才能达到其合理性。     

文学理论：从主体性到主体间性

西方现代哲学、美学发生了由主体性到主体间性的转向 ,而中国古代哲学、美学本来就是主体间性的。在 80年代确立了主体性后 ,新世纪的中国文学理论应当开始主体间性的拓展。主体间性文学理论突破了认识论的局限 ,不是把文学活动看作主体对客体的认识和征服 ,而是看作主体间的共在 ,是自我主体与世界主体间的对话、交往 ,是对自我与他人的认同 ,因而是自由的生存方式和对生存意义的体验     

论文学的主体间性——兼谈文艺学的方法论变革

主体间性理论是现代哲学思想的一个重要组成部分 ,其研究对象是主体之间的相互交往关系。对于文学主体间性的探讨可以帮助我们的文艺学研究摆脱本质主义倾向和二元论思维方式 ,从而实现方法论上的根本变革。按照这种理论 ,文艺活动就不是对于社会生活的反映或者认识 ,而是主体之间的相互作用和交流。其中 ,创作活动乃是艺术家与所描绘的对象、人物之间的相互交流 ,接受活动则是读者以作品为中介与作者之间的交往活动。     

Traditional,Problem-Solving and Critical Theory: An Analysis of Horkheimer and Cox's Setting of the ‘Critical’ Divide

Abstract

Robert W. Cox's dictum that ‘(t)heory is for someone and for some purpose’ (emphasis in the original) is said to be the most-quoted line in International Relations (IR) theory. Yet whilst this spurred a revolution in critical thinking in IR, it echoed a far older conception of Critical Theory advanced by Max Horkheimer in the 1930s that claimed there is ‘no theory of society?…?that does not contain political motivations'. Both sentiments emphasize the relation between knowledge and human interests, and yet both formulate two distinct—though allied—ways of approaching ‘critical’ theorizing. In order to understand the similarities and differences in their approaches, this paper draws out three loci of difference between Cox and Horkheimer regarding the question of emancipation: (i) the epistemological relation between ‘critical’ and ‘Problem-Solving’ (Cox) or ‘Traditional Theory’ (Horkheimer); (ii) the emphasis placed on transformation and historical process; and (iii) the importance of intersubjectivity in how each approach emancipation. It is argued that by actively combining critical (dialectical) approaches across the social sciences, broadening human agency through civilizational dialogue, and retaining a commitment to emancipatory (and visionary) political futures based on human association, that Critical International Theory can maintain ongoing relevance in IR.     

交往理性观照下的翻译主体间性

20世纪70年代以来,在笛卡尔的＂我思故我在＂哲学体系基础上建立起的西方主体性哲学稍有衰退,主体间性思想随之逐渐兴起。哈贝马斯的交往行为理论强调主体间的相互尊重、双向交往和理解,使交往行为者与世界建立起联系,以此来解决翻译研究单主体范式的困惑,使翻译活动中各主体之间能在理想的语境下通过交流,达成有效理解,清楚认识,和谐共存。     

Linguistic practice and identity work: Variation in Taiwan Mandarin at a Taipei County high school

This article examines variation in the use of two Taiwan Mandarin features, de‐retroflection of sibilant fricatives [?] → [s], and labial glide deletion [w?] → [?], in the speech of Taipei County high school students. The features become resources for the negotiation of identity positions within the highly structured school institution. I discuss the correlations between the use of Taiwan Mandarin and two social factors: membership in the small culture (Holliday 1999 ) of a particular bānjí or class, and individual aspirations. Holliday's concept of small cultures is proposed as a variant of the Community of Practice. I refer to Bucholtz and Hall's ( 2004 ) tactics of intersubjectivity framework as a possible tool for explaining variation at the school. I argue that the two Taiwan Mandarin features are invoked to perform different social goals, which is possible because they are imbued with related but significantly different sociocultural meanings (Brubaker 2012 ; Baran 2007 ).     

思想自由·独立思考·大胆质疑——“史学现代化”国际学术研讨会概述

学者们在"史学现代化"国际学术研讨会上就会议主题包括历史的规律、属性、功能与原因、史学观念以及主体与客体、史学现代化的内涵与趋向等史学理论和方法诸重要议题进行了热烈而深入的探讨,并且在有关问题上达成了一定的共识。这无疑会有益于丰富、充实史学的内容,从而把史学现代化推向新高度。     

Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis

Intersubjectivity refers to the variety of possible relations between perspectives. It is indispensable for understanding human social behaviour. While theoretical work on intersubjectivity is relatively sophisticated, methodological approaches to studying intersubjectivity lag behind. Most methodologies assume that individuals are the unit of analysis. In order to research intersubjectivity, however, methodologies are needed that take relationships as the unit of analysis. The first aim of this article is to review existing methodologies for studying intersubjectivity. Four methodological approaches are reviewed: comparative self-report, observing behaviour, analysing talk and ethnographic engagement. The second aim of the article is to introduce and contribute to the development of a dialogical method of analysis. The dialogical approach enables the study of intersubjectivity at different levels, as both implicit and explicit, and both within and between individuals and groups. The article concludes with suggestions for using the proposed method for researching intersubjectivity both within individuals and between individuals and groups.     

走出"科技伦理"的误区

"科技伦理"在实践上是行不通的.它无视个体主体与社会主体在实践职能上的异质性,把本该由社会主体甚至类主体所承担的社会伦理责任强加于科技工作者个体主体的头上;它抹杀了伦理学的阶级性质,忽视了"主体际性"或"交往"对于科技主体的引导和制约作用;它是批判科技决定论形式下的变相的科技决定论,过高估计了科学技术及其主体对人类历史同时也是实践史的作用和影响,从而问接否认了唯物主义的"历史合力论".科技的社会伦理取向只能导致科技的停滞甚至被取消,这对于科学技术本身以及人类的生存和发展恰恰是非人道的、不伦理的,这就是"科技伦理"的悖论.