Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Austin's model of law
Austin holds a positivist conception of law. According to him, law is a general command of a sovereign. There are two crucial components in his definition of law. First, a sovereign is a body of society who delivers command but has no need to abbey others. It is seen A's the pedigree or source of legitimacy of law. Second, the command given by a sovereign must be in a general sense, that is, the command must be valid for all. It is opposite to particular command that is effective in particular situation. But there is also doubt about the existence of particular command and it is claimed that any so called particular commands are also general commands. They are general in the sense that they are effective to some class of action or person.
Austin, A's a positivist, deny the necessary connection between law and morality. The legitimacy of law does not depends on whether the content of law is morally good or bad but on the source where it originates, that is, the sovereign delivering the command. A command is the expression of a wish backed up by a sanction. A sanction is supposed to be against evil of desire. Do not murder. This is a command which must be complied because it is delivered by a sovereign. Once some one destroys it, she will be sanctioned. The duty of not murdering is imposed by the command. So, we call it duty-imposing rules.
Hart, though A's a positivist, has criticism against Austin. He develops a kind of power-conferring rules which is excluded by Austin's model. For example, getting married is also a legal issue but the law does not command everyone to get married. It applies to you only when you choose to get married. Some say that the nullity or invalidity of particular conduct is also a sanction. If one do not sign contract, the contract will be invalid and the desired goal will not be realized without protection of law. But nullify need not be an evil or undesirable. Some may welcome the nullity of marriage. Not all desirable thing are necessarily sanction. For example, to relieve the pain of my teeth, I go to have a dental surgery. The pain of surgery is not a sanction because of my intention.
Austin, A's a positivist, deny the necessary connection between law and morality. The legitimacy of law does not depends on whether the content of law is morally good or bad but on the source where it originates, that is, the sovereign delivering the command. A command is the expression of a wish backed up by a sanction. A sanction is supposed to be against evil of desire. Do not murder. This is a command which must be complied because it is delivered by a sovereign. Once some one destroys it, she will be sanctioned. The duty of not murdering is imposed by the command. So, we call it duty-imposing rules.
Hart, though A's a positivist, has criticism against Austin. He develops a kind of power-conferring rules which is excluded by Austin's model. For example, getting married is also a legal issue but the law does not command everyone to get married. It applies to you only when you choose to get married. Some say that the nullity or invalidity of particular conduct is also a sanction. If one do not sign contract, the contract will be invalid and the desired goal will not be realized without protection of law. But nullify need not be an evil or undesirable. Some may welcome the nullity of marriage. Not all desirable thing are necessarily sanction. For example, to relieve the pain of my teeth, I go to have a dental surgery. The pain of surgery is not a sanction because of my intention.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Cp 8254
Cp 8
254
Revised justice principle
Most extensive to fully
Basic liberties
For development of individual moral capacities
No clear reason for priority of liberty
It is different from argument of first principle
Basic liberties constitute an absolute system, but not single liberty in it is absolute.
Equal basic liberties are not equal on worth
Liberty is the same but the value for people are different because they have different means to access it. Liberty is not of equal value.
254
Revised justice principle
Most extensive to fully
Basic liberties
For development of individual moral capacities
No clear reason for priority of liberty
It is different from argument of first principle
Basic liberties constitute an absolute system, but not single liberty in it is absolute.
Equal basic liberties are not equal on worth
Liberty is the same but the value for people are different because they have different means to access it. Liberty is not of equal value.
Political liberties is crucial to equal status of citizenship. Warrant the equal value of these liberties. Fair value
Self respect, a basic liberty, some social condition are required. Complex plan of life is more preferable than simple one's.
Association, for similar interest and communication
InEquality in Common wealth will undermines the equal value of liberties
Not all talents are equally emphasized in particular society. Some talented persons will lose their self respect.
In some society where material condition is not satisfied , concern of liberty is not that important for them.
Justice does not applied to animals for their lack of moral capacity.
Pains is bad in itself. Pain is crucial to wrongness of act.
Harm principle is wider than liberty principle.
Freedom is good but not the only good.
Scarce resource
Scarce resource
Pluralism
Neutrality
Public reason
Disability
Relationship between different conceptions of goods
Political area of social life
Neutral between different conception of goods rather than different conception of justice or rights in other theories, like anti liberal theory.
Free standing is not based on comprehensive position
Overlapping consensus
Political liberalism is not based on any comprehensive theories but each of them can find some support for the political conception from their particular points.
Pluralism
Neutrality
Public reason
Disability
Relationship between different conceptions of goods
Political area of social life
Neutral between different conception of goods rather than different conception of justice or rights in other theories, like anti liberal theory.
Free standing is not based on comprehensive position
Overlapping consensus
Political liberalism is not based on any comprehensive theories but each of them can find some support for the political conception from their particular points.
Respect for person argument, man as equal free agent, should choose by themselves. Importance of free choice, give value
Be tolerated not for it's free choice but it's good from particular point.
Minimum argument
Fetus abortion
Whether fetus is a human life?
This should be settled before bracketing controversy
Like the problem of slavery
Whether you treat them A's human being before you talk about justice
The premise
Once fetus has a right to life, abortion will be murder.
If not, it will depend on woman's decision.
Be what we should be
Be what we should be
To choose what human beings should be between what human beings could be and then discuss what human beings would be in spite of what human beings are being currently, namely, how to get human beings to be what they should be in proper way. It is respectively about the natural essence of man, the ethical nature of man and the political nature of human society.
To choose what human beings should be between what human beings could be and then discuss what human beings would be in spite of what human beings are being currently, namely, how to get human beings to be what they should be in proper way. It is respectively about the natural essence of man, the ethical nature of man and the political nature of human society.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Think by speaking or writing rather than in silence.
Think by speaking or writing rather than in silence.
Learn by listening and reading rather than in amptiness.
In one ward, think and learn through discussion.
Learn by listening and reading rather than in amptiness.
In one ward, think and learn through discussion.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
摩梭族母系社会思考
摩梭族母系社会思考
近来思想波动极大。一来，受现实困境的困扰，对自己略失自信，二来，学术思想上未有突破，甚为沮丧。虽然有课业亟待完成，但思想上的困扰一日不解脱，便无任何心思和动力去做它务。故将大量时间用在随心浏览各种信息上，有学术性的，有知识性的，也有感官性的。了解到近代五四时期是近代中国思想和学术风气最为活跃开放，成果丰硕的时代，如胡适，林玉堂等。也了解到当代中国却有睿智进步的学者，如李泽厚，易中天等，但是最重要的是我了解到了纳西族或摩梭族的文化传统和社会模式。这是一个在当今世上唯一幸存的母系氏族社会。她拥有比甲骨文还古老的却仍然在用的象形文字，东巴文。她没有现代婚姻制度的束缚，盛行走婚制。在这样的社会里，女性不再受歧视，地位高却没有到压迫男性的地步。男女恋爱自由，没有永久性的制度性婚姻束缚，爱则一起，不爱则分离。这是一个没有丈夫和父亲的社会，子女终身不离开母系家庭，财产通过女性后代传承。男不娶女不嫁，只因感情和性关系而同居。如两情相悦，女方邀请男方夜间去其房间过夜，次晨男子再回自己的家。彼此没有经济关系，男女各为自己家庭工作，收入归母系长辈管理。子女只知其母不知其父，其父也往往不知其子，也有知道，意义也不大。子女有母系成员共同抚养，如姥姥，母亲，姨妈，舅舅。此种家庭关系和睦，长辈受尊敬，幼子受关爱，兄弟姐妹相协助。由于是一个母系，亲情更为真实和自然。由于没有固定婚姻，所以没有媳妇与夫家的纠葛，更没有两个家庭之间的纠葛，更没有离婚。但是性关系并非迂儒所假想的淫乱无度，恰恰相反，男女由于没有经济纠缠，各自独立，感情更为真挚。如果感情稳定，可以保持终生关系，如果不合，由于没有制度束缚，可自愿解散。也有一女与多个男子保持关系，或一男子与多女子保持关系，但是，彼此之间也是保持宽容态度，同性之间没有很强的嫉妒心理。这个社会让我重新看待人类社会，原来一个没有父权和婚姻的社会是可能的而且更为和谐稳定，个体自由，社会正义。他们男人间有句俗话，＂只偷女人不偷男人＂。也就是说，除了家庭内部的和谐外，也有社会正义。看到这个社会，我才终于理解了老子的思想。常说，孔子慕周，墨子羡商，老子崇夏。虽然老子没有明确说他所崇尚的社会是母系社会，也许因为他能得到的信息比较有限，只有大体社会状况的简单描述，没有具体制度的记载，但是如果他所描述的是夏甚至更久远的时代，那么很有可能就是母系社会。另外，还引起了我对女性主义的关注，开始意识到这个理论的重要性。以前只是以为女性主义不过是为女性争取平等权利的学说，但是现在我意识到，女性主义还有可能导向一个全新的社会模式。现在暂且不知，女性主义如何看待母系社会，但是我认为，女性主义必然导向母系社会。因为如果没有了婚姻制度，孩子必然归母亲抚养。这样可能立即有人反对，说那样又成了女性高于男性，会导致新的性别歧视。其实这是多虑了。在母系社会中，社会分工更为自然，会依照男女的自然差异产生分工。无论男女谁赚了钱，都在自己家庭内部分配。由于其纯粹的亲情关系，从而不会产生歧视。关键是不会产生夫妻之间的经济依赖关系。婚姻制度的转变将对社会形态产生如此大的影响。不得不让我对此问题深加思考。
这只是在纳西社会模式下思考，其实也有可能产生其他模式的母系社会。我的假设是，没有婚姻，必然走向母系社会。婚姻是男权社会的基本制度保障，无论一夫多妻制还是一夫一妻制。还有一种是一妻多夫制，这是母系社会，但是却有婚姻制度，因此存在男女不平等，而且家庭纠纷会更复杂。纳西族的走婚制是最为宽容的，她可能容纳所有那些性关系，但是却不用制度加以束缚。保证了个体最大的自由，同时家庭更为纯粹。
有一个问题是，财产制度。如果财产不归集体所有，会怎么样呢？个体拥有财产，这样母亲的地位仿佛会受到挑战。如果每个男女经济都是独立的，那么抚养子女的负担就全部落在女人身上。男人的财产却可以积累起来，最后女人为了生存将不得不把自己出卖给男人。这就进入了父权社会。所以，在母系社会中，个体必然不能拥有独立的经济权，这样祖母才可以通过转移儿子的财产来帮女儿抚养子女。但是如果一个家里全是儿子，这个家庭如何维系。如果母亲去世，权力和财产如何传承和分配？是传给大女儿，还是各女儿分家？女人老了可以有子女，男人老了呢？如果分家，男人何去何从？跟随那个姐妹？实际可能会这样，一家子女，对待所有女性长辈都如母亲，男性长辈都如父亲。很显然，在这种情况下子女与舅舅的关系比与其亲生父亲的关系更为亲近。但是这个社会中，男人的地位处于边缘，只具有工具性的价值。男人只为母亲，姐妹，及姐妹的子女贡献。不得不把姐妹的孩子当作自己的孩子，对自己的孩子却不能照顾。这样男人又承担了比女人更多的责任。这也就不难理解为什么，纳西族的男人相对懒惰，而女人则更吃苦。男人工做的动力是比较低的。他们如果经济独立，就可能会拒绝帮姐妹抚养孩子，甚至离开家庭。摆脱了家庭义务，这样他可以物质上更丰富，与更多女人结合。不独立貌似也可以和许多女人结合，而且他们也不一定以多为好。那样，经济独立对他的诱惑就只有义务的减少，生活的富足。但是，亲情这一精神支柱会丧失，除了爱情，没有别的。另外，自己独立生活，由于没有女人照顾日常家务，自己不得不做这些事务。也没有可以亲近的子女在身旁，并且老了更会孤苦无依。所以，在这种环境下，男子会继续留在家中。要服从母亲的领导，从而为家庭做贡献，也相应得到家庭的好处。
但是如果，男子离开母系家庭，与外界女子建立父系家庭，这就是可能的，而且对男子有很强的吸引力。他虽然要承担更多的责任，但是其动力更强。这种关系，女子又成了附属地位。
很遗憾，到头来发现母系社会跟个体独立也是格格不入的。由于调动不起男人的动力，生产力发展会比较缓慢。只有个体主义才能调动人的潜能。但是，如果没有婚姻，女性的独立是假的，真正解放的只能是男人。由于男人的资本积累更快，最终会导致一夫多妻。所以还是需要婚姻以保障子女的抚养。但是牺牲了人们自由选择性关系的自由。多元性关系理念，是试图在婚姻制度的基础上解放个体性自由。将婚姻和非婚姻性关系统一起来。如何可能呢？人的心理将是最大的障碍。所以有了黄色产业。是一种畸形的解决方式，扼杀了感情的真挚。但是如果容许感情与性关系多元，又会不可避免的危机婚姻。也许法国这方面做得最好。他们在趋于建立一种传统婚姻基础上的宽容的性和爱情观念和婚姻观念。嫉妒心理是最难的一关。即使保障婚姻同时宽容混外性关系，但是如何才能做到宽容？ 只能靠一种文化来建构这一样种道德心理。
近来思想波动极大。一来，受现实困境的困扰，对自己略失自信，二来，学术思想上未有突破，甚为沮丧。虽然有课业亟待完成，但思想上的困扰一日不解脱，便无任何心思和动力去做它务。故将大量时间用在随心浏览各种信息上，有学术性的，有知识性的，也有感官性的。了解到近代五四时期是近代中国思想和学术风气最为活跃开放，成果丰硕的时代，如胡适，林玉堂等。也了解到当代中国却有睿智进步的学者，如李泽厚，易中天等，但是最重要的是我了解到了纳西族或摩梭族的文化传统和社会模式。这是一个在当今世上唯一幸存的母系氏族社会。她拥有比甲骨文还古老的却仍然在用的象形文字，东巴文。她没有现代婚姻制度的束缚，盛行走婚制。在这样的社会里，女性不再受歧视，地位高却没有到压迫男性的地步。男女恋爱自由，没有永久性的制度性婚姻束缚，爱则一起，不爱则分离。这是一个没有丈夫和父亲的社会，子女终身不离开母系家庭，财产通过女性后代传承。男不娶女不嫁，只因感情和性关系而同居。如两情相悦，女方邀请男方夜间去其房间过夜，次晨男子再回自己的家。彼此没有经济关系，男女各为自己家庭工作，收入归母系长辈管理。子女只知其母不知其父，其父也往往不知其子，也有知道，意义也不大。子女有母系成员共同抚养，如姥姥，母亲，姨妈，舅舅。此种家庭关系和睦，长辈受尊敬，幼子受关爱，兄弟姐妹相协助。由于是一个母系，亲情更为真实和自然。由于没有固定婚姻，所以没有媳妇与夫家的纠葛，更没有两个家庭之间的纠葛，更没有离婚。但是性关系并非迂儒所假想的淫乱无度，恰恰相反，男女由于没有经济纠缠，各自独立，感情更为真挚。如果感情稳定，可以保持终生关系，如果不合，由于没有制度束缚，可自愿解散。也有一女与多个男子保持关系，或一男子与多女子保持关系，但是，彼此之间也是保持宽容态度，同性之间没有很强的嫉妒心理。这个社会让我重新看待人类社会，原来一个没有父权和婚姻的社会是可能的而且更为和谐稳定，个体自由，社会正义。他们男人间有句俗话，＂只偷女人不偷男人＂。也就是说，除了家庭内部的和谐外，也有社会正义。看到这个社会，我才终于理解了老子的思想。常说，孔子慕周，墨子羡商，老子崇夏。虽然老子没有明确说他所崇尚的社会是母系社会，也许因为他能得到的信息比较有限，只有大体社会状况的简单描述，没有具体制度的记载，但是如果他所描述的是夏甚至更久远的时代，那么很有可能就是母系社会。另外，还引起了我对女性主义的关注，开始意识到这个理论的重要性。以前只是以为女性主义不过是为女性争取平等权利的学说，但是现在我意识到，女性主义还有可能导向一个全新的社会模式。现在暂且不知，女性主义如何看待母系社会，但是我认为，女性主义必然导向母系社会。因为如果没有了婚姻制度，孩子必然归母亲抚养。这样可能立即有人反对，说那样又成了女性高于男性，会导致新的性别歧视。其实这是多虑了。在母系社会中，社会分工更为自然，会依照男女的自然差异产生分工。无论男女谁赚了钱，都在自己家庭内部分配。由于其纯粹的亲情关系，从而不会产生歧视。关键是不会产生夫妻之间的经济依赖关系。婚姻制度的转变将对社会形态产生如此大的影响。不得不让我对此问题深加思考。
这只是在纳西社会模式下思考，其实也有可能产生其他模式的母系社会。我的假设是，没有婚姻，必然走向母系社会。婚姻是男权社会的基本制度保障，无论一夫多妻制还是一夫一妻制。还有一种是一妻多夫制，这是母系社会，但是却有婚姻制度，因此存在男女不平等，而且家庭纠纷会更复杂。纳西族的走婚制是最为宽容的，她可能容纳所有那些性关系，但是却不用制度加以束缚。保证了个体最大的自由，同时家庭更为纯粹。
有一个问题是，财产制度。如果财产不归集体所有，会怎么样呢？个体拥有财产，这样母亲的地位仿佛会受到挑战。如果每个男女经济都是独立的，那么抚养子女的负担就全部落在女人身上。男人的财产却可以积累起来，最后女人为了生存将不得不把自己出卖给男人。这就进入了父权社会。所以，在母系社会中，个体必然不能拥有独立的经济权，这样祖母才可以通过转移儿子的财产来帮女儿抚养子女。但是如果一个家里全是儿子，这个家庭如何维系。如果母亲去世，权力和财产如何传承和分配？是传给大女儿，还是各女儿分家？女人老了可以有子女，男人老了呢？如果分家，男人何去何从？跟随那个姐妹？实际可能会这样，一家子女，对待所有女性长辈都如母亲，男性长辈都如父亲。很显然，在这种情况下子女与舅舅的关系比与其亲生父亲的关系更为亲近。但是这个社会中，男人的地位处于边缘，只具有工具性的价值。男人只为母亲，姐妹，及姐妹的子女贡献。不得不把姐妹的孩子当作自己的孩子，对自己的孩子却不能照顾。这样男人又承担了比女人更多的责任。这也就不难理解为什么，纳西族的男人相对懒惰，而女人则更吃苦。男人工做的动力是比较低的。他们如果经济独立，就可能会拒绝帮姐妹抚养孩子，甚至离开家庭。摆脱了家庭义务，这样他可以物质上更丰富，与更多女人结合。不独立貌似也可以和许多女人结合，而且他们也不一定以多为好。那样，经济独立对他的诱惑就只有义务的减少，生活的富足。但是，亲情这一精神支柱会丧失，除了爱情，没有别的。另外，自己独立生活，由于没有女人照顾日常家务，自己不得不做这些事务。也没有可以亲近的子女在身旁，并且老了更会孤苦无依。所以，在这种环境下，男子会继续留在家中。要服从母亲的领导，从而为家庭做贡献，也相应得到家庭的好处。
但是如果，男子离开母系家庭，与外界女子建立父系家庭，这就是可能的，而且对男子有很强的吸引力。他虽然要承担更多的责任，但是其动力更强。这种关系，女子又成了附属地位。
很遗憾，到头来发现母系社会跟个体独立也是格格不入的。由于调动不起男人的动力，生产力发展会比较缓慢。只有个体主义才能调动人的潜能。但是，如果没有婚姻，女性的独立是假的，真正解放的只能是男人。由于男人的资本积累更快，最终会导致一夫多妻。所以还是需要婚姻以保障子女的抚养。但是牺牲了人们自由选择性关系的自由。多元性关系理念，是试图在婚姻制度的基础上解放个体性自由。将婚姻和非婚姻性关系统一起来。如何可能呢？人的心理将是最大的障碍。所以有了黄色产业。是一种畸形的解决方式，扼杀了感情的真挚。但是如果容许感情与性关系多元，又会不可避免的危机婚姻。也许法国这方面做得最好。他们在趋于建立一种传统婚姻基础上的宽容的性和爱情观念和婚姻观念。嫉妒心理是最难的一关。即使保障婚姻同时宽容混外性关系，但是如何才能做到宽容？ 只能靠一种文化来建构这一样种道德心理。
个人幸福与制度正义
个人幸福与制度正义
Personal happiness and institutional justice
咨询部门
救助部门或协助部门
a conception of happiness
and a political conception
on the basis of the conception of happiness, we discuss liberty, equality, cooperation, distributive justice, and justice. those constitute elements of institution.
the motivation of thinking is happiness, which allowed to be defined by individuals, rather than a particular model of happiness.
the variety of model of happiness
many theory is to support an institution that promote particular model of happiness. they assume it is the best.
government must be neutral among different models of happiness. that means the institution must be formal
Personal happiness and institutional justice
咨询部门
救助部门或协助部门
a conception of happiness
and a political conception
on the basis of the conception of happiness, we discuss liberty, equality, cooperation, distributive justice, and justice. those constitute elements of institution.
the motivation of thinking is happiness, which allowed to be defined by individuals, rather than a particular model of happiness.
the variety of model of happiness
many theory is to support an institution that promote particular model of happiness. they assume it is the best.
government must be neutral among different models of happiness. that means the institution must be formal
The concept of happiness
The concept of happiness
谨慎选择，大胆追求
中国政治道德判断，往往流于简单化和盲目化。诉求方面，朴素的实用主义泛滥， 而论证方面，则盲目的直觉主义横行。 素朴的实用主义让我们的诉求缺乏远见。盲目的直觉主义则让我们的论证缺少信服力。人们提出一个观点或批评一个观点往往想当然的下结论，其根据往往是一些潜意识的固有观念。合起来说，这是一种常识主义，我们在以常识的态度来对待理论，理论的严谨性和原发性被想当然的扼杀了。 这些都是千百年来积累下来的思维习惯，深入骨髓，然而，若希望中国政治道德学说真正有所进步，这两点必须加以改正。普通百姓以此思考论事尚可原谅，学者和主政者若也如此，便很可怕，也很可悲了。改正它绝非易事，须究根溯源。无外乎两点，一方面，近代以来中国传统文化虽然受到了众多的批判，传统思维方式却依然主导着人们的思维方式，一方面虽然西学东渐一直在继续，但是真正的西式思维却没有建立起来。可以这样说，无论是自我批判还是学习西方，都只做了表面工作，未及真髓。所以，我们还需要再启蒙。我们还需要一个五四运动，对传统的思维方式加以反思，诚信学习西方的思维方法。 实用主义和直觉主义在西方理论中都有很重要的地位，但是和我们的大不一样。或者说，和我们对待它们的方式大不一样。 简单说，他们持有的实用主义是经过审慎论证的，他们的直觉主义是经过反思的。 为了对二者有一个更为恰当的理解，介绍一下罗尔斯的反思的平衡是非常有益的。这是他的哲学体系的方法论，也可以说是集西方理性思维方式之大成。这个方法既重视直觉也重视理性，最重要的是二者相辅相成，达到二者的平衡。通过这样一种论证方式，既避免了盲目的直觉主义假设，也避免了无根的理性建构。从而使得理论的论证充实而饱满，具有极强的说服力。
谨慎选择，大胆追求
中国政治道德判断，往往流于简单化和盲目化。诉求方面，朴素的实用主义泛滥， 而论证方面，则盲目的直觉主义横行。 素朴的实用主义让我们的诉求缺乏远见。盲目的直觉主义则让我们的论证缺少信服力。人们提出一个观点或批评一个观点往往想当然的下结论，其根据往往是一些潜意识的固有观念。合起来说，这是一种常识主义，我们在以常识的态度来对待理论，理论的严谨性和原发性被想当然的扼杀了。 这些都是千百年来积累下来的思维习惯，深入骨髓，然而，若希望中国政治道德学说真正有所进步，这两点必须加以改正。普通百姓以此思考论事尚可原谅，学者和主政者若也如此，便很可怕，也很可悲了。改正它绝非易事，须究根溯源。无外乎两点，一方面，近代以来中国传统文化虽然受到了众多的批判，传统思维方式却依然主导着人们的思维方式，一方面虽然西学东渐一直在继续，但是真正的西式思维却没有建立起来。可以这样说，无论是自我批判还是学习西方，都只做了表面工作，未及真髓。所以，我们还需要再启蒙。我们还需要一个五四运动，对传统的思维方式加以反思，诚信学习西方的思维方法。 实用主义和直觉主义在西方理论中都有很重要的地位，但是和我们的大不一样。或者说，和我们对待它们的方式大不一样。 简单说，他们持有的实用主义是经过审慎论证的，他们的直觉主义是经过反思的。 为了对二者有一个更为恰当的理解，介绍一下罗尔斯的反思的平衡是非常有益的。这是他的哲学体系的方法论，也可以说是集西方理性思维方式之大成。这个方法既重视直觉也重视理性，最重要的是二者相辅相成，达到二者的平衡。通过这样一种论证方式，既避免了盲目的直觉主义假设，也避免了无根的理性建构。从而使得理论的论证充实而饱满，具有极强的说服力。
我之所以重视对幸福观念的阐发，在于中国人的骨子里所能想望的无非是幸福。但是这个幸福被学者和政治家给扭曲了。我认为西方人所想望的也无非是个人福祉。 问题在于，在中国个人福祉完全被集体或者君主的福祉所扭曲，长期受到所谓大局利益的压迫。 这儿大局的利益不过是统治者的利益。被统治者的利益要服从于统治者的利益。哪有什么大局？真正的大局是指每一个人的利益。根据传统的论调，仿佛只有这一种大局。大局在他们那儿只是个忽悠百姓的修辞而已，实则以大局之名义图统治者之私利。所以，我要通过阐发个人主义幸福观念来告诉人们，他们才是自己生活的主人。所谓大意必须包含每一个人的利益，而且是占有平等的份量。揭露统治者的谎言，启迪人们觉悟，并奋发维护真正的大局之利，这个利同时包含着每一个体的利。利，乃幸福的物质前提。自由更不是如此，是幸福的形式条件。自由的分类以及与幸福的关系在另一文中解释过了。
My unique understanding of happiness will be the foundation of my liberal theory. I will explain an intuitive conception of happiness. It's the foundation or the goal of my theory? Obviously I am following Mill's notion, especially his emphasis on individuality and harm principle. But I will explain it in the dimension of meaning of life. It is an understanding of life. From it I explain why we should promote individual liberty and the role of government. Any theory stands on particular premise. They needs detailed explanation but does not require further qualification because it is presupposed to be the assumption of the theory, that is, the foundation of the qualification. The goal of qualification of the theory is the demonstration of the value of liberty and the obligation and limitation of government. But, my strategy is that to do the demonstration the happiness is assumed to be the goal of personal life and what government is bonded to do..
The concept of happiness is formal, that is, empty. It's the ultimate goal of each individual. The goal of each person is to maximize his happiness. However, the specific content of happiness for one person depends on his personal choice. Each person defines their own happiness according to their own judgment. One A's a rational being, uses his own capacity of reasoning to make free choice, to freely decide what is the goal of his life, what is the happiness he appreciates, what is the proper way of achieving it. Even others think it foolish, unwise and even undesirable at all, what they can do is only to persuade him to change his mind but never has the right to enforce him to obey their judgment. The agent himself has the final say about his own life.
I agreed with Mill's principle of harm. Harm to others is the only legitimate reason for interference with individual liberty.
The system does not guarantee the final achievement of happiness of each individual but will justify that it is able to guarantee the highest probability of achieving it for individual. Even the goal is not achieved, the life is still meaningful for the person, because he has been leading his life to what he really appreciates which is the source of meaning of life. The goal itself for the person who sets it is meaningful rather than only the achievement of it is the meaning of life. The foundation of it is that it is freely chosen and sincerely appreciated by it's holder. This is to say, everyone is the founder of his life meaning. The ego.
Reading what
Reading what
以后要多读二十世纪初期那些学者的作品，他们大多学贯中西，聪慧多才，是当时中国最优秀的人才，加上那个时代学坛无主，百家争鸣，从而产生了大量上等作品。那时人们的精神风貌亦非常值得体味。与今日中国文化风貌差异甚多。今日学者只能望其项背而已。那时虽国家内忧外患，风雨飘摇，文化界却异常自由和活跃，文人各怀抱壮志，穷其所能以扶大厦之将倾。志气之高远，人格之独立，才华之横溢，今之文人唯汗颜尔。 建国之后的文章少读为宜，不读最妙。
也要多读先秦典籍，那是了解中国文化的真正源头。如有可取的东西，肯定在那里。秦汉以来的文化，基本是一个模子，没什么可借鉴之处，但是却有反思和批评的价值，因为中国现在的许多文化症结就是在这期间形成和强化的。许多本来蛮有希望和价值的思想，在这里被埋没了。如道家，墨家。
以后要多读二十世纪初期那些学者的作品，他们大多学贯中西，聪慧多才，是当时中国最优秀的人才，加上那个时代学坛无主，百家争鸣，从而产生了大量上等作品。那时人们的精神风貌亦非常值得体味。与今日中国文化风貌差异甚多。今日学者只能望其项背而已。那时虽国家内忧外患，风雨飘摇，文化界却异常自由和活跃，文人各怀抱壮志，穷其所能以扶大厦之将倾。志气之高远，人格之独立，才华之横溢，今之文人唯汗颜尔。 建国之后的文章少读为宜，不读最妙。
也要多读先秦典籍，那是了解中国文化的真正源头。如有可取的东西，肯定在那里。秦汉以来的文化，基本是一个模子，没什么可借鉴之处，但是却有反思和批评的价值，因为中国现在的许多文化症结就是在这期间形成和强化的。许多本来蛮有希望和价值的思想，在这里被埋没了。如道家，墨家。
启蒙如果谨慎选择，大胆追求是人生箴言，那么忽视的大胆假设，小心求证则是做学术的座右铭。
启蒙
如果谨慎选择，大胆追求是人生箴言，那么忽视的大胆假设，小心求证则是做学术的座右铭。
学术贵在严谨和原创，是一种自由而严肃的事业。如果像古时迂儒一般，只知死读圣贤书，何创造之有。但凡古之贤达，无不有冲破藩篱的勇气，从而自立一说。而西方则历来重视和鼓励怀疑争论和创新，所以有了如此繁茂的学术成果。
要立新说决非易事，要挑战前人最有利的理论，要充分为自己的观点辩护。提出一个观点容易，证明一个观点却很不容易。找到别人致命的漏洞不易，论证也不易。这需要自己有怀疑的精神，创新的勇气，论证的才力。
虽然不易，但是不可妄自菲薄，丧失了创造的勇气和信念。没有谁的观点和论证一下子做到完善，也没有谁的理论绝对正确。尽管去努力，让自己的观点尽可能完善，足已。
虽然自清末以来，不断有西方伦理和政治哲学著作介绍进来，但是多是译著和介绍性著作，在西学框架内，尚无可与西方大家分庭抗礼的著作出现。这与科学领域的景观大相径庭。虽然不如西方科技发达，成果也不如人家多，但是中国人的确已有了很多杰出的贡献。而在哲学领域尚未真正有大的贡献，甚至连向国内介绍也很不充分。我国对西方政治文明的认识还是比较表面化的，而且由于意识形态的影响，存在很多误解和扭曲。在政治改革进程中，观念的传播是非常重要的一环，是真正制度实现的社会思想基础，不只对于普通人，更对于政治家来说。而学术上的进步，虽然能直接对变革产生明显影响，但是却表明中国在这一领域的学术水平的提高，是对世界政治理论的贡献。印度在理论上已经有人走在了世界的前沿，这个人就是阿马太亚森。他已成了当代政治哲学领域的重量级人物。我导师马来华人，他在此领域也有很高声望。
启蒙，于我于国人，都是一个必修课。中国的启蒙之路还很长。
如果谨慎选择，大胆追求是人生箴言，那么忽视的大胆假设，小心求证则是做学术的座右铭。
学术贵在严谨和原创，是一种自由而严肃的事业。如果像古时迂儒一般，只知死读圣贤书，何创造之有。但凡古之贤达，无不有冲破藩篱的勇气，从而自立一说。而西方则历来重视和鼓励怀疑争论和创新，所以有了如此繁茂的学术成果。
要立新说决非易事，要挑战前人最有利的理论，要充分为自己的观点辩护。提出一个观点容易，证明一个观点却很不容易。找到别人致命的漏洞不易，论证也不易。这需要自己有怀疑的精神，创新的勇气，论证的才力。
虽然不易，但是不可妄自菲薄，丧失了创造的勇气和信念。没有谁的观点和论证一下子做到完善，也没有谁的理论绝对正确。尽管去努力，让自己的观点尽可能完善，足已。
虽然自清末以来，不断有西方伦理和政治哲学著作介绍进来，但是多是译著和介绍性著作，在西学框架内，尚无可与西方大家分庭抗礼的著作出现。这与科学领域的景观大相径庭。虽然不如西方科技发达，成果也不如人家多，但是中国人的确已有了很多杰出的贡献。而在哲学领域尚未真正有大的贡献，甚至连向国内介绍也很不充分。我国对西方政治文明的认识还是比较表面化的，而且由于意识形态的影响，存在很多误解和扭曲。在政治改革进程中，观念的传播是非常重要的一环，是真正制度实现的社会思想基础，不只对于普通人，更对于政治家来说。而学术上的进步，虽然能直接对变革产生明显影响，但是却表明中国在这一领域的学术水平的提高，是对世界政治理论的贡献。印度在理论上已经有人走在了世界的前沿，这个人就是阿马太亚森。他已成了当代政治哲学领域的重量级人物。我导师马来华人，他在此领域也有很高声望。
启蒙，于我于国人，都是一个必修课。中国的启蒙之路还很长。
Two kinds of liberty
Two kinds of liberty
First, liberty in principle.
It means people can do anything even he can not achieve it. For example, I want to fly. No body has right to stop me to try that. This kind of liberty is only limited by liberty of others.
First, liberty in principle.
It means people can do anything even he can not achieve it. For example, I want to fly. No body has right to stop me to try that. This kind of liberty is only limited by liberty of others.
Second, liberty in reality.
It means I want to do and be able to achieve it. For example, I want to get out of the door and do it.
From the first to the second, there is a gap. It is the restriction of condition. Some of condition is artificial. This can be and should be abandoned. For example, the interference from others or government. Some are natural. For example, no body has the ability to fly without device. It is equal and unremovable for all men. There is unequal but natural restriction. For example, the disability caused by nature or accidence. Some unequal natural restriction cannot be removed, like disability. Some can be adjusted artificially. For example, the material restriction can be adjusted by redistribution. But this involves interference with other individual's freedom or rights.
This is the debate between Rawls and Nozick. The key is how we understand the unequal natural but removable restriction of liberty. The point is inequality. It the inequality just? Both of them think it is neither just or unjust. But their way of treating it is different.
Rawls thinks that although it is natural inequality, from moral point, it is arbitrary. Nobody deserves what they get from nature. The important thing is how the institution treats the inequality. He believes that institution has the obligation to adjust the inequality A's much A's it can do. because he considers the institution A's a cooperative system. Every body contribute to it and benefit from it.
Nozick thinks that although it inequality, it is natural. Every body has a right to his natural endowment. Those unfortunate are misery but it is not the reason to violate other's rights. A's long A's, one's property is got through just way, he has the right to it. It is inviable. Institution has no right to sacrifice one part to benefit the other part. It is unjust.
Laozi Laozi has the conception of freedom, but does not have the conception of democracy. He sees the value of freedom of citizens and absence of interference from rulers, so he promote the politics of wuwei but he gives hope to sages rather than develop an institutional conception of democracy. This is only one step to get the key to realize freedom. He holds the core of question but no the key to question. The application of wuwei is hard. It depends on whether the ruler is a sage. But in fact rulers are rare to be sage. So, wuwei that Laozi advocates is unpractical.
Laozi
Laozi has the conception of freedom, but does not have the conception of democracy. He sees the value of freedom of citizens and absence of interference from rulers, so he promote the politics of wuwei but he gives hope to sages rather than develop an institutional conception of democracy. This is only one step to get the key to realize freedom. He holds the core of question but no the key to question. The application of wuwei is hard. It depends on whether the ruler is a sage. But in fact rulers are rare to be sage. So, wuwei that Laozi advocates is unpractical.
Laozi has the conception of freedom, but does not have the conception of democracy. He sees the value of freedom of citizens and absence of interference from rulers, so he promote the politics of wuwei but he gives hope to sages rather than develop an institutional conception of democracy. This is only one step to get the key to realize freedom. He holds the core of question but no the key to question. The application of wuwei is hard. It depends on whether the ruler is a sage. But in fact rulers are rare to be sage. So, wuwei that Laozi advocates is unpractical.
I learned a lot from my friends and my failed presentation.
I learned a lot from my friends and my failed presentation.
For chairing a presentation,
Follow up has priority
For chairing a presentation,
Follow up has priority
For presenting
Present what you have confidence
Present in oral style
Response with "I will think about it, and come back to you shortly", when meet problem.
Be confident
For life
Be prepared for all potential issues
enjoy communicating
Sensitive to other's reaction
Take advices seriously
For language
Listen more
Speak without thinking grammar
PaternalismThere is no essential difference between compelling one to the heaven and compelling one to the hell, between enforcing one to be a king and enforcing one to be a beggar, and even the difference between compelling one to be a good man and compelling one to be a bad man. likewise, one cannot be prevented to pursue his goal, whatever the goal is, going to the heaven or he'll, being a king or beggar, being a good or bad man. But once he harms others no matter it is for, he will be punished. He may be punished on the way to be a bad man when he harms others. He may also be punished on the way to be a good man when he harms others. Each one has the absolute sovereign in determining his life plan but the plan may not be allowed because it harms others rather than it is bad in itself.
Paternalism
There is no essential difference between compelling one to the heaven and compelling one to the hell, between enforcing one to be a king and enforcing one to be a beggar, and even the difference between compelling one to be a good man and compelling one to be a bad man. likewise, one cannot be prevented to pursue his goal, whatever the goal is, going to the heaven or he'll, being a king or beggar, being a good or bad man. But once he harms others no matter it is for, he will be punished. He may be punished on the way to be a bad man when he harms others. He may also be punished on the way to be a good man when he harms others. Each one has the absolute sovereign in determining his life plan but the plan may not be allowed because it harms others rather than it is bad in itself.
There is no essential difference between compelling one to the heaven and compelling one to the hell, between enforcing one to be a king and enforcing one to be a beggar, and even the difference between compelling one to be a good man and compelling one to be a bad man. likewise, one cannot be prevented to pursue his goal, whatever the goal is, going to the heaven or he'll, being a king or beggar, being a good or bad man. But once he harms others no matter it is for, he will be punished. He may be punished on the way to be a bad man when he harms others. He may also be punished on the way to be a good man when he harms others. Each one has the absolute sovereign in determining his life plan but the plan may not be allowed because it harms others rather than it is bad in itself.
I am going to develop a new utilitarian project which is viable to Rawls's contractarianism. The key points are the notion of happiness, and the distributive principle of calculation.
Correct your way of thinking
Correct your way of thinking
I have a severe problem in thinking. I am easily incline to believe that a problem could be resolved holistically and try to change it by offering a complete solution. However, in fact, that is impossible. I treat things too idealistically. I am too ambitious so that I have no any confidence about my ambition. To avoid stepping in wrong direct where I would achieve nothing, I must stop to reflect the way of thinking, the way through which I understand the world and myself. I am too naive. I neglected the complexity of problems and the limitation of my personal competence. Problems cannot be resolved in one time or by one person. What I can contribute is to do something that I can afford. Or else, I will help nothing and perhaps defeat myself completely by ruining my own life. The most crucial issue for each person is always his own life, his family and career. To earn money on order to afford the family. Besides that, he can try to do something that he can afford for him. Do not desire too much. Admit that you are just one very common person and try to be a little person in life. To be happy is the genuine pursuit for each one. When you meet complex problem, just take it easy. No body can easily solve them. Keep your life in the right direction. Keep your mind clear and realistic. Do not dream what you should not dream. Be calm, and be happy. Take care yourself and your family.
Do small things, enjoy small happiness. Be small person, enjoy the happiness of small person.
I have a severe problem in thinking. I am easily incline to believe that a problem could be resolved holistically and try to change it by offering a complete solution. However, in fact, that is impossible. I treat things too idealistically. I am too ambitious so that I have no any confidence about my ambition. To avoid stepping in wrong direct where I would achieve nothing, I must stop to reflect the way of thinking, the way through which I understand the world and myself. I am too naive. I neglected the complexity of problems and the limitation of my personal competence. Problems cannot be resolved in one time or by one person. What I can contribute is to do something that I can afford. Or else, I will help nothing and perhaps defeat myself completely by ruining my own life. The most crucial issue for each person is always his own life, his family and career. To earn money on order to afford the family. Besides that, he can try to do something that he can afford for him. Do not desire too much. Admit that you are just one very common person and try to be a little person in life. To be happy is the genuine pursuit for each one. When you meet complex problem, just take it easy. No body can easily solve them. Keep your life in the right direction. Keep your mind clear and realistic. Do not dream what you should not dream. Be calm, and be happy. Take care yourself and your family.
Do small things, enjoy small happiness. Be small person, enjoy the happiness of small person.
摩梭族母系社会思考近来思想波动极大。一来，受现实困境的困扰，对自己略失自信，二来，学术思想上未有突破，甚为沮丧。虽然有课业亟待完成，但思想上的困扰一日不解脱，便无任何心思和动力去做它务。故将大量时间用在随心浏览各种信息上，有学术性的，有知识性的，也有感官性的。了解到近代五四时期是近代中国思想和学术风气最为活跃开放，成果丰硕的时代，如胡适，林玉堂等。也了解到当代中国却有睿智进步的学者，如李泽厚，易中天等，但是最重要的是我了解到了纳西族或摩梭族的文化传统和社会模式。这是一个在当今世上唯一幸存的母系氏族社会。她拥有比甲骨文还古老的却仍然在用的象形文字，东巴文。她没有现代婚姻制度的束缚，盛行走婚制。在这样的社会里，女性不再受歧视，地位高却没有到压迫男性的地步。男女恋爱自由，没有永久性的制度性婚姻束缚，爱则一起，不爱则分离。这是一个没有丈夫和父亲的社会，子女终身不离开母系家庭，财产通过女性后代传承。男不娶女不嫁，只因感情和性关系而同居。如两情相悦，女方邀请男方夜间去其房间过夜，次晨男子再回自己的家。彼此没有经济关系，男女各为自己家庭工作，收入归母系长辈管理。子女只知其母不知其父，其父也往往不知其子，也有知道，意义也不大。子女有母系成员共同抚养，如姥姥，母亲，姨妈，舅舅。此种家庭关系和睦，长辈受尊敬，幼子受关爱，兄弟姐妹相协助。由于是一个母系，亲情更为真实和自然。由于没有固定婚姻，所以没有媳妇与夫家的纠葛，更没有两个家庭之间的纠葛，更没有离婚。但是性关系并非迂儒所假想的淫乱无度，恰恰相反，男女由于没有经济纠缠，各自独立，感情更为真挚。如果感情稳定，可以保持终生关系，如果不合，由于没有制度束缚，可自愿解散。也有一女与多个男子保持关系，或一男子与多女子保持关系，但是，彼此之间也是保持宽容态度，同性之间没有很强的嫉妒心理。这个社会让我重新看待人类社会，原来一个没有父权和婚姻的社会是可能的而且更为和谐稳定，个体自由，社会正义。他们男人间有句俗话，＂只偷女人不偷男人＂。也就是说，除了家庭内部的和谐外，也有社会正义。看到这个社会，我才终于理解了老子的思想。常说，孔子慕周，墨子羡商，老子崇夏。虽然老子没有明确说他所崇尚的社会是母系社会，也许因为他能得到的信息比较有限，只有大体社会状况的简单描述，没有具体制度的记载，但是如果他所描述的是夏甚至更久远的时代，那么很有可能就是母系社会。另外，还引起了我对女性主义的关注，开始意识到这个理论的重要性。以前只是以为女性主义不过是为女性争取平等权利的学说，但是现在我意识到，女性主义还有可能导向一个全新的社会模式。现在暂且不知，女性主义如何看待母系社会，但是我认为，女性主义必然导向母系社会。因为如果没有了婚姻制度，孩子必然归母亲抚养。这样可能立即有人反对，说那样又成了女性高于男性，会导致新的性别歧视。其实这是多虑了。在母系社会中，社会分工更为自然，会依照男女的自然差异产生分工。无论男女谁赚了钱，都在自己家庭内部分配。由于其纯粹的亲情关系，从而不会产生歧视。关键是不会产生夫妻之间的经济依赖关系。婚姻制度的转变将对社会形态产生如此大的影响。不得不让我对此问题深加思考。
摩梭族母系社会思考
近来思想波动极大。一来，受现实困境的困扰，对自己略失自信，二来，学术思想上未有突破，甚为沮丧。虽然有课业亟待完成，但思想上的困扰一日不解脱，便无任何心思和动力去做它务。故将大量时间用在随心浏览各种信息上，有学术性的，有知识性的，也有感官性的。了解到近代五四时期是近代中国思想和学术风气最为活跃开放，成果丰硕的时代，如胡适，林玉堂等。也了解到当代中国却有睿智进步的学者，如李泽厚，易中天等，但是最重要的是我了解到了纳西族或摩梭族的文化传统和社会模式。这是一个在当今世上唯一幸存的母系氏族社会。她拥有比甲骨文还古老的却仍然在用的象形文字，东巴文。她没有现代婚姻制度的束缚，盛行走婚制。在这样的社会里，女性不再受歧视，地位高却没有到压迫男性的地步。男女恋爱自由，没有永久性的制度性婚姻束缚，爱则一起，不爱则分离。这是一个没有丈夫和父亲的社会，子女终身不离开母系家庭，财产通过女性后代传承。男不娶女不嫁，只因感情和性关系而同居。如两情相悦，女方邀请男方夜间去其房间过夜，次晨男子再回自己的家。彼此没有经济关系，男女各为自己家庭工作，收入归母系长辈管理。子女只知其母不知其父，其父也往往不知其子，也有知道，意义也不大。子女有母系成员共同抚养，如姥姥，母亲，姨妈，舅舅。此种家庭关系和睦，长辈受尊敬，幼子受关爱，兄弟姐妹相协助。由于是一个母系，亲情更为真实和自然。由于没有固定婚姻，所以没有媳妇与夫家的纠葛，更没有两个家庭之间的纠葛，更没有离婚。但是性关系并非迂儒所假想的淫乱无度，恰恰相反，男女由于没有经济纠缠，各自独立，感情更为真挚。如果感情稳定，可以保持终生关系，如果不合，由于没有制度束缚，可自愿解散。也有一女与多个男子保持关系，或一男子与多女子保持关系，但是，彼此之间也是保持宽容态度，同性之间没有很强的嫉妒心理。这个社会让我重新看待人类社会，原来一个没有父权和婚姻的社会是可能的而且更为和谐稳定，个体自由，社会正义。他们男人间有句俗话，＂只偷女人不偷男人＂。也就是说，除了家庭内部的和谐外，也有社会正义。看到这个社会，我才终于理解了老子的思想。常说，孔子慕周，墨子羡商，老子崇夏。虽然老子没有明确说他所崇尚的社会是母系社会，也许因为他能得到的信息比较有限，只有大体社会状况的简单描述，没有具体制度的记载，但是如果他所描述的是夏甚至更久远的时代，那么很有可能就是母系社会。另外，还引起了我对女性主义的关注，开始意识到这个理论的重要性。以前只是以为女性主义不过是为女性争取平等权利的学说，但是现在我意识到，女性主义还有可能导向一个全新的社会模式。现在暂且不知，女性主义如何看待母系社会，但是我认为，女性主义必然导向母系社会。因为如果没有了婚姻制度，孩子必然归母亲抚养。这样可能立即有人反对，说那样又成了女性高于男性，会导致新的性别歧视。其实这是多虑了。在母系社会中，社会分工更为自然，会依照男女的自然差异产生分工。无论男女谁赚了钱，都在自己家庭内部分配。由于其纯粹的亲情关系，从而不会产生歧视。关键是不会产生夫妻之间的经济依赖关系。婚姻制度的转变将对社会形态产生如此大的影响。不得不让我对此问题深加思考。
这只是在纳西社会模式下思考，其实也有可能产生其他模式的母系社会。我的假设是，没有婚姻，必然走向母系社会。婚姻是男权社会的基本制度保障，无论一夫多妻制还是一夫一妻制。还有一种是一妻多夫制，这是母系社会，但是却有婚姻制度，因此存在男女不平等，而且家庭纠纷会更复杂。纳西族的走婚制是最为宽容的，她可能容纳所有那些性关系，但是却不用制度加以束缚。保证了个体最大的自由，同时家庭更为纯粹。
有一个问题是，财产制度。如果财产不归集体所有，会怎么样呢？个体拥有财产，这样母亲的地位仿佛会受到挑战。如果每个男女经济都是独立的，那么抚养子女的负担就全部落在女人身上。男人的财产却可以积累起来，最后女人为了生存将不得不把自己出卖给男人。这就进入了父权社会。所以，在母系社会中，个体必然不能拥有独立的经济权，这样祖母才可以通过转移儿子的财产来帮女儿抚养子女。但是如果一个家里全是儿子，这个家庭如何维系。如果母亲去世，权力和财产如何传承和分配？是传给大女儿，还是各女儿分家？女人老了可以有子女，男人老了呢？如果分家，男人何去何从？跟随那个姐妹？实际可能会这样，一家子女，对待所有女性长辈都如母亲，男性长辈都如父亲。很显然，在这种情况下子女与舅舅的关系比与其亲生父亲的关系更为亲近。但是这个社会中，男人的地位处于边缘，只具有工具性的价值。男人只为母亲，姐妹，及姐妹的子女贡献。不得不把姐妹的孩子当作自己的孩子，对自己的孩子却不能照顾。这样男人又承担了比女人更多的责任。这也就不难理解为什么，纳西族的男人相对懒惰，而女人则更吃苦。男人工做的动力是比较低的。他们如果经济独立，就可能会拒绝帮姐妹抚养孩子，甚至离开家庭。摆脱了家庭义务，这样他可以物质上更丰富，与更多女人结合。不独立貌似也可以和许多女人结合，而且他们也不一定以多为好。那样，经济独立对他的诱惑就只有义务的减少，生活的富足。但是，亲情这一精神支柱会丧失，除了爱情，没有别的。另外，自己独立生活，由于没有女人照顾日常家务，自己不得不做这些事务。也没有可以亲近的子女在身旁，并且老了更会孤苦无依。所以，在这种环境下，男子会继续留在家中。要服从母亲的领导，从而为家庭做贡献，也相应得到家庭的好处。
但是如果，男子离开母系家庭，与外界女子建立父系家庭，这就是可能的，而且对男子有很强的吸引力。他虽然要承担更多的责任，但是其动力更强。这种关系，女子又成了附属地位。
很遗憾，到头来发现母系社会跟个体独立也是格格不入的。由于调动不起男人的动力，生产力发展会比较缓慢。只有个体主义才能调动人的潜能。但是，如果没有婚姻，女性的独立是假的，真正解放的只能是男人。由于男人的资本积累更快，最终会导致一夫多妻。所以还是需要婚姻以保障子女的抚养。但是牺牲了人们自由选择性关系的自由。多元性关系理念，是试图在婚姻制度的基础上解放个体性自由。将婚姻和非婚姻性关系统一起来。如何可能呢？人的心理将是最大的障碍。所以有了黄色产业。是一种畸形的解决方式，扼杀了感情的真挚。但是如果容许感情与性关系多元，又会不可避免的危机婚姻。也许法国这方面做得最好。他们在趋于建立一种传统婚姻基础上的宽容的性和爱情观念和婚姻观念。嫉妒心理是最难的一关。即使保障婚姻同时宽容混外性关系，但是如何才能做到宽容？ 只能靠一种文化来建构这一样种道德心理。
近来思想波动极大。一来，受现实困境的困扰，对自己略失自信，二来，学术思想上未有突破，甚为沮丧。虽然有课业亟待完成，但思想上的困扰一日不解脱，便无任何心思和动力去做它务。故将大量时间用在随心浏览各种信息上，有学术性的，有知识性的，也有感官性的。了解到近代五四时期是近代中国思想和学术风气最为活跃开放，成果丰硕的时代，如胡适，林玉堂等。也了解到当代中国却有睿智进步的学者，如李泽厚，易中天等，但是最重要的是我了解到了纳西族或摩梭族的文化传统和社会模式。这是一个在当今世上唯一幸存的母系氏族社会。她拥有比甲骨文还古老的却仍然在用的象形文字，东巴文。她没有现代婚姻制度的束缚，盛行走婚制。在这样的社会里，女性不再受歧视，地位高却没有到压迫男性的地步。男女恋爱自由，没有永久性的制度性婚姻束缚，爱则一起，不爱则分离。这是一个没有丈夫和父亲的社会，子女终身不离开母系家庭，财产通过女性后代传承。男不娶女不嫁，只因感情和性关系而同居。如两情相悦，女方邀请男方夜间去其房间过夜，次晨男子再回自己的家。彼此没有经济关系，男女各为自己家庭工作，收入归母系长辈管理。子女只知其母不知其父，其父也往往不知其子，也有知道，意义也不大。子女有母系成员共同抚养，如姥姥，母亲，姨妈，舅舅。此种家庭关系和睦，长辈受尊敬，幼子受关爱，兄弟姐妹相协助。由于是一个母系，亲情更为真实和自然。由于没有固定婚姻，所以没有媳妇与夫家的纠葛，更没有两个家庭之间的纠葛，更没有离婚。但是性关系并非迂儒所假想的淫乱无度，恰恰相反，男女由于没有经济纠缠，各自独立，感情更为真挚。如果感情稳定，可以保持终生关系，如果不合，由于没有制度束缚，可自愿解散。也有一女与多个男子保持关系，或一男子与多女子保持关系，但是，彼此之间也是保持宽容态度，同性之间没有很强的嫉妒心理。这个社会让我重新看待人类社会，原来一个没有父权和婚姻的社会是可能的而且更为和谐稳定，个体自由，社会正义。他们男人间有句俗话，＂只偷女人不偷男人＂。也就是说，除了家庭内部的和谐外，也有社会正义。看到这个社会，我才终于理解了老子的思想。常说，孔子慕周，墨子羡商，老子崇夏。虽然老子没有明确说他所崇尚的社会是母系社会，也许因为他能得到的信息比较有限，只有大体社会状况的简单描述，没有具体制度的记载，但是如果他所描述的是夏甚至更久远的时代，那么很有可能就是母系社会。另外，还引起了我对女性主义的关注，开始意识到这个理论的重要性。以前只是以为女性主义不过是为女性争取平等权利的学说，但是现在我意识到，女性主义还有可能导向一个全新的社会模式。现在暂且不知，女性主义如何看待母系社会，但是我认为，女性主义必然导向母系社会。因为如果没有了婚姻制度，孩子必然归母亲抚养。这样可能立即有人反对，说那样又成了女性高于男性，会导致新的性别歧视。其实这是多虑了。在母系社会中，社会分工更为自然，会依照男女的自然差异产生分工。无论男女谁赚了钱，都在自己家庭内部分配。由于其纯粹的亲情关系，从而不会产生歧视。关键是不会产生夫妻之间的经济依赖关系。婚姻制度的转变将对社会形态产生如此大的影响。不得不让我对此问题深加思考。
这只是在纳西社会模式下思考，其实也有可能产生其他模式的母系社会。我的假设是，没有婚姻，必然走向母系社会。婚姻是男权社会的基本制度保障，无论一夫多妻制还是一夫一妻制。还有一种是一妻多夫制，这是母系社会，但是却有婚姻制度，因此存在男女不平等，而且家庭纠纷会更复杂。纳西族的走婚制是最为宽容的，她可能容纳所有那些性关系，但是却不用制度加以束缚。保证了个体最大的自由，同时家庭更为纯粹。
有一个问题是，财产制度。如果财产不归集体所有，会怎么样呢？个体拥有财产，这样母亲的地位仿佛会受到挑战。如果每个男女经济都是独立的，那么抚养子女的负担就全部落在女人身上。男人的财产却可以积累起来，最后女人为了生存将不得不把自己出卖给男人。这就进入了父权社会。所以，在母系社会中，个体必然不能拥有独立的经济权，这样祖母才可以通过转移儿子的财产来帮女儿抚养子女。但是如果一个家里全是儿子，这个家庭如何维系。如果母亲去世，权力和财产如何传承和分配？是传给大女儿，还是各女儿分家？女人老了可以有子女，男人老了呢？如果分家，男人何去何从？跟随那个姐妹？实际可能会这样，一家子女，对待所有女性长辈都如母亲，男性长辈都如父亲。很显然，在这种情况下子女与舅舅的关系比与其亲生父亲的关系更为亲近。但是这个社会中，男人的地位处于边缘，只具有工具性的价值。男人只为母亲，姐妹，及姐妹的子女贡献。不得不把姐妹的孩子当作自己的孩子，对自己的孩子却不能照顾。这样男人又承担了比女人更多的责任。这也就不难理解为什么，纳西族的男人相对懒惰，而女人则更吃苦。男人工做的动力是比较低的。他们如果经济独立，就可能会拒绝帮姐妹抚养孩子，甚至离开家庭。摆脱了家庭义务，这样他可以物质上更丰富，与更多女人结合。不独立貌似也可以和许多女人结合，而且他们也不一定以多为好。那样，经济独立对他的诱惑就只有义务的减少，生活的富足。但是，亲情这一精神支柱会丧失，除了爱情，没有别的。另外，自己独立生活，由于没有女人照顾日常家务，自己不得不做这些事务。也没有可以亲近的子女在身旁，并且老了更会孤苦无依。所以，在这种环境下，男子会继续留在家中。要服从母亲的领导，从而为家庭做贡献，也相应得到家庭的好处。
但是如果，男子离开母系家庭，与外界女子建立父系家庭，这就是可能的，而且对男子有很强的吸引力。他虽然要承担更多的责任，但是其动力更强。这种关系，女子又成了附属地位。
很遗憾，到头来发现母系社会跟个体独立也是格格不入的。由于调动不起男人的动力，生产力发展会比较缓慢。只有个体主义才能调动人的潜能。但是，如果没有婚姻，女性的独立是假的，真正解放的只能是男人。由于男人的资本积累更快，最终会导致一夫多妻。所以还是需要婚姻以保障子女的抚养。但是牺牲了人们自由选择性关系的自由。多元性关系理念，是试图在婚姻制度的基础上解放个体性自由。将婚姻和非婚姻性关系统一起来。如何可能呢？人的心理将是最大的障碍。所以有了黄色产业。是一种畸形的解决方式，扼杀了感情的真挚。但是如果容许感情与性关系多元，又会不可避免的危机婚姻。也许法国这方面做得最好。他们在趋于建立一种传统婚姻基础上的宽容的性和爱情观念和婚姻观念。嫉妒心理是最难的一关。即使保障婚姻同时宽容混外性关系，但是如何才能做到宽容？ 只能靠一种文化来建构这一样种道德心理。
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Advantage of communism
Advantage of communism
Communism's first big advantage was that it played on two human appetites―the noble desire for justice and the baser hunger for vengeance.
共产主义最大的优点，即是它利用了人类两大需求――对正义的崇高理想，对复仇的更卑贱的渴望。
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Be what we should be
Be what we should be
To choose what human beings should be between what human beings could be and then discuss what human beings would be in spite of what human beings are being currently, namely, how to get human beings to be what they should be in proper way. It is respectively about the natural essence of man, the ethical nature of man and the political nature of human society.
To choose what human beings should be between what human beings could be and then discuss what human beings would be in spite of what human beings are being currently, namely, how to get human beings to be what they should be in proper way. It is respectively about the natural essence of man, the ethical nature of man and the political nature of human society.
Letter from Hansen
Letter from Hansen
I was moved by the letter from Hansen which showed his deep sympathy of Chinese philosophy and disappointment with the current presentation that just emphasizes the unreflective parts of Chinese philosophy such A's conventionalist Confucianism and religious interpretation of Daoism. His words evoked me to think about what I can do for Chinese philosophy rather than only introducing the most advanced philosophy of west.
I was moved by the letter from Hansen which showed his deep sympathy of Chinese philosophy and disappointment with the current presentation that just emphasizes the unreflective parts of Chinese philosophy such A's conventionalist Confucianism and religious interpretation of Daoism. His words evoked me to think about what I can do for Chinese philosophy rather than only introducing the most advanced philosophy of west.
I still remember what is my first instinctive reaction to kinds of philosophies when I as a high school student was to get interested in philosophy. The reaction was to directly refuse Confucianism and appeal to Zhuangzi and Nietzsche. The reason I told my friends at the moment is that I have been influenced enough by the Confucian tradition A's I grew up in Shandong where is the birth place of Confucius. However, unfortunately after I entered university what I could get from Chinese philosophy academic sphere is only about Confucianism which was so boring for me. I gave up any wish to involve in Chinese philosophy. Furthermore I inclined to attribute the root of various social problems to traditional culture, regarding it A's the root of the corrupt social environment.
I never met a real Daoist before Hansen except some cowards who just tried to avoid any connection with real society for fears. Now I want to reconsider the heritage of Chinese philosophy.
Topic four
Topic four
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls maintains that Mill's arguments for liberty will not justify "an equal liberty for all" because "whenever a society sets out to maximize the sum of intrinsic value or the net balance of satisfaction of interests, it is liable to find that the denial of liberty for some is justified in the name of this single end"(p211, 1972). In Polotical Liberalism, Rawls also argues that the maintenance of "one comprehensive religious, philosophical, or moral doctrine" can only be done by the "oppressive use of state power", and that this is true even of a "society united on a reasonable form of utilitarianism, or on the reasonable liberalisms of Kant and Mill"(p.37). Discuss Rawls's comments on Mill's defense of individual liberty and individuality.
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls maintains that Mill's arguments for liberty will not justify "an equal liberty for all" because "whenever a society sets out to maximize the sum of intrinsic value or the net balance of satisfaction of interests, it is liable to find that the denial of liberty for some is justified in the name of this single end"(p211, 1972). In Polotical Liberalism, Rawls also argues that the maintenance of "one comprehensive religious, philosophical, or moral doctrine" can only be done by the "oppressive use of state power", and that this is true even of a "society united on a reasonable form of utilitarianism, or on the reasonable liberalisms of Kant and Mill"(p.37). Discuss Rawls's comments on Mill's defense of individual liberty and individuality.
Topic three
Topic three
Mill is opposed to coercive interference with the conduct of individuals which does not harm others, even when such conduct distresses the majority because they dislike or disapprove of it. Can his view be defended in purely utilitarian terms?
Mill is opposed to coercive interference with the conduct of individuals which does not harm others, even when such conduct distresses the majority because they dislike or disapprove of it. Can his view be defended in purely utilitarian terms?
Topic two
Topic two
"if the arguments in the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussion, A's a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered"(mill, on liberty). Discuss Mill's case for freedom of expression and it's application to racist and blasphemous.
"if the arguments in the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussion, A's a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered"(mill, on liberty). Discuss Mill's case for freedom of expression and it's application to racist and blasphemous.
It is some time claimed that lock had two main arguments for religious toleration: the true belief argument that true religious belief cannot be acquired through coercion, and the universalization argument that the principle of religious intolerance in favor of the true religion would not be desirable if it were universally interpreted and applied by fallible and often biased human beings. See Alex Tuckness, "Locke's main argument for toleration". Explain and discuss both arguments.
It is some time claimed that lock had two main arguments for religious toleration: the true belief argument that true religious belief cannot be acquired through coercion, and the universalization argument that the principle of religious intolerance in favor of the true religion would not be desirable if it were universally interpreted and applied by fallible and often biased human beings. See Alex Tuckness, "Locke's main argument for toleration". Explain and discuss both arguments.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Critique shape
Introduction --name of author and work --general overview of subject and summary of author's argument --focusing (or thesis) sentence indicating how you will divide the whole work for discussion or the particular elements you will discuss Body --objective description of a major point in the work --detailed analysis of the logic and relationships --interpretation of the concept --repetition of description, analysis, interpretation if more than one major concept is covered Conclusion --overall interpretation --relationship of particular interpretations to subject as a whole --critical assessment of the value, worth, or meaning of the work, both negative and positive The Critique Shape for Non-Fiction
Introduction --name of author and work --brief summary / description of work as a Whole --focusing sentence indicating what element you plan to examine --general indication of overall significance of work Body --literal description of the first major element or portion of the work --detailed analysis --interpretation --literal description of second major element --detailed analysis --interpretation (including, if necessary, the relationship to the first major point) --and so on Conclusion --overall interpretation of the elements studied --relationship to the work as a whole --critical assessment of the value, worth, meaning, or significance of the work, both positive and negative The Critique Shape for Literature
You may not be asked in every critique to assess a work, only to analyze and interpret it. If you are asked for a personal response, remember that your assessment should not be the expression of an unsupported or irrelevant personal opinion. Your interpretations and your conclusions must be based on evidence from the text and follow from the ideas you have dealt with in the paper. Remember also that a critique may express a positive as well as a negative assessment. Don't confuse critique with criticize in the popular sense of the word, "to point out faults."
From http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/critique.htmlpublication of paper
On Thursday Neil and Cecilia were invited by Prof. Tan to give us a talk regarding publishing papers.
Firstly, always choose topics philosophers are concerning currently.
Secondly, read broadly and massively in order to get familiar with those topics.
Thirdly, focus on particular area in order to specialize myself.
Fourthly, originality always interests editors most.
Finally, chapters for degree thesis could also be revised for publication.
Thanks for their nice instructions.
Firstly, always choose topics philosophers are concerning currently.
Secondly, read broadly and massively in order to get familiar with those topics.
Thirdly, focus on particular area in order to specialize myself.
Fourthly, originality always interests editors most.
Finally, chapters for degree thesis could also be revised for publication.
Thanks for their nice instructions.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
dao
1. Which of the following is most and least likely to be true?
Confucius learned from Laozi.
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao.
Explain why in each case. Bonus: Is any item in A-C verifiable enough for someone to claim to "know" it?
Confucius learned from Laozi.
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao.
Explain why in each case. Bonus: Is any item in A-C verifiable enough for someone to claim to "know" it?
Firstly I incline to hold that the second item is most likely to be true but only partly true. I admit the authorship of Laozi to Daode Jing but do not believe that Laozi is the single author of the book. From the textual differences among the new discovered Guodian version, Mawangdui version and the traditional Wangbi version, it is clear that the text of Daode Jing has been changing along the line of time. Some new verses or chapters are added in later versions. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the text of Daode Jing was probably compiled by a group of contributors. But this view does not suggest that as some scholar suspected Laozi is not an real figure in history but a metaphor of the authorship by accouting the term Laozi as an old master. In contrast, I hold that Laozi is most likely to be the initiative author of the book. Suppose the book was edited many times by different editors who are likely to be contributors of some messages in the book. In addition to the fact that in ancient China many pieces of a book are often added anonymously, it is reasonable to believe that any one of these editors has no confidence to claim himself as the author. The more possible way he follows is to authorize the Daode Jing by the name of initiator of this book. Above all, I conclude that Laozi is the initial author of Daode Jing who wrote some verses or chapters that shape the basic spirit of the book.
The story of item 1 is popular among people but most likely to be untrue. The earliest material recording the meeting between Confucius and Laozi is in Zhuangzi. There are also records about the story in Shi Ji and Li Ji which nevertheless are much later than Zhuangzi. Besides the metephorical style of Zhuangzi, another barrier preventing us from believing records in it as historical fact is that no any information indicates that Mencius who is known to live before Zhuangzi knows about Laozi. Mencius dedicated all his life to defending Confucianism by criticizing all rival opponents but singularly ignored the important opposition between Laozi and Confucius. This seems no coincidence. There is also no information regarding Laozi in Mozi who lived between Confucius and Mencius. In short, my conclusion is that Laozi is a person who lived after Mencius and therefore it is impossible that Mencius learned from Laozi.
I suspect the truth of the story in item 3 but have no evidence to demonstrate that it is untrue. Therefore, I put it between item 3 and 1.
Because of various uncertainties of the philosophical texts in Pre-Qin period, there are always other alternatives to interpret these texts and their relationship. So, no one of the three item is verifiable enough for one to claim he firmly knows it.
2. Explain how belief and knowledge are expressed in Classical Chinese. Why would that be important in understanding the meaning of Wu-wei / Lack-deem:do?
Western language functions as a descriptive system representing the outer world. A proposition is right when it represents the reality accurately, and vice versa. The meanings of terms are private mental states, namely, ideas. Different from western linguistic theory, classic Chinese is a prescriptive system generating guiding discourses for social behavior. In this system, convention plays a crucial role in forming prevailing knowledges and beliefs. Their contents are normative discourses delivered by language. Learning language is learning these normtive guides that shape people’s social behavior. Language sets the boudaries between rightness and wrongness of actions. So, the conventional ways of using names or distinctions are the ways that people should follow to react in various social situations. So, what ancient philosophers would concern most is not truth of reality but the Dao guiding behavior and the proper names that help achieve the goal of that Dao.
However, what is the standard for making guiding distinction? This is the central disbute between ancient Chinese philosophical schools. Confucius advocates strictly following the conventional way by rectifying names while Mozi reversely advocates reforming conventional rituals according to his utilitarian principles. Different both of them, Laozi puts forth an extreme strategy to deal with this question, that is, to deny the whole artificial behavior-guiding system. One central concept of his theory is wu-wei which is opposite to the whole socializing system. Laozi’s philosophical reflection actually exausted the limit of Chinese language which is a normative system. Therefore, many of his statement are in paradoxical style. Wu-wei is opposite to wei. In eyes of Laozi, to wei is to act as common people under the guide of artificial discourses or to make distinctions of social behaviors according to principles like what Confucius and Mozi did. So, wei here does not mean free, rational or conscious action as we understand today. Reversely, Laozi treats it as actions induced by behavior forms socially imposed to individuals. Laozi treats this kind of way people act as unnatural and advocates a natural way of life, the dao of water: wu-wei. Wu-wei presents its meaning in challenging the commonly accepted way of “wei”. It advises to avoid any action induced by artificial guiding forms. It is notable that Laozi’s wu-wei is not attacking the ego underlying individuality, desire and purpose as we understand. On the contrary, Wu-wei is to get us free from the artificial guiding system. It tries to abandon the whole system of names and distinctions that shaping our behavior in order to lead us to have a nutural life. However, here Laozi also gives prescriptive by distinguising natural from artificial way of life.
3. Should we distinguish clearly between textual theory and interpretive theory? Why or why not? Give an example of how they might be confused.
We should clearly distinguish between textual theory and interpretive theory. Firstly, the theoretical interests in textual theory and interpretive theory are siganificantly different. Textual theory pays more attention to archeological aspect of a text while interpretive theory focuses more on conceptual scheme of a text. Therefore, a new version discovered always interests textual theorists and will have significant influence on the current textual theories even if the new discovered text in fact is a bad version from the point of view of interpretive theory. In contrast, although a new discovered text will attract interpretive interest and even have some influence on their interpretation on the traditional text, theorists focusing on interpretation are more interested in the debates he involved in.
Secondly, even if the new discovered version is qualified to be closer to the original, this does not guarantee that interpretation on it will be more productive than that on the traditional one. The point is that the intellectual value of an interpretation is not based on which text it works on but the interaction between interpretors involved in the same philosophical debate based on the same text. Of course one interpretor can try to interpret the new discovered version but this may have no busniess with the debate based on the traditional one.
Thirdly, the specific intellectual interest of an interpretor may lead him to a particular version. As Hansen said, he is dedicated to the philosophical interpretation of the Daode Jing while comparing with the traditional version, Mawangdui version pays more attention on political aspect in its edition and therefore has less philosophical value for him. So, the traditional version of Daode Jing is much more preferable to him than the Mawangdui version.
Example: when one claims that the Mawangdui version of Daode Jing is a better version as the target of interpretion for the reason that the version is much closer to the original than the trodional version. Interpretive theory has its own specific reasons to work on particular version of text but the reason at least must not be the one offered by textual theory. (see item 8 for more details about the example)
4. Is holism important to interpretation? Why or why not? Does this mean that we can never find a "correct" translation/interpretation? Explain.
Yes, holism is important to interpretation. Firstly, different from dictionary-like traditional approach which treats translation prior to interpretive theory of language and therefore results in fragmented interpretation, we assert that interpretive theory proceeds translation in order to generate a systematical interpretation of a certain text. Beginning with this, a holistic nature of meaning is presupposed when we adopt principles of charity and humanity. “We attribute beliefs and meanings in the same theory”(p11). Since the principle of humanity purports to find out the internal connection between beliefs, it requires us to understand how a text could be understandable within the context where the author wrote it and fore us to have a presupposition of a whole conceptual system in each case.
Secondly, to hold on holism is to reject the traditional distortion of the philosophical development and the nature of ancient Chinese philosphical discourses. The Neo-confucian theory as the ruling theory simply presupposes two assumptions in order to protect itself from rival criticisms. The first is the fragmented-schools view according to which different schools internally developped up without critical interactions with other schools. In contrast, we admit that all schools involved with the debates upon topics that they concern in their time and benefited from these debates. This gives us a holistical context to understand their discourses in an inter-related manner. The second is the meaning-change hypothesis which sugguests what these schools talked about are fundamentally different things that can be understandable only within in one particular school. This means that critiques from other schools always miss point and therefore do not matter to Confucianism. Reversely, we assume that different schools share some common philosophical interests and endorse some basic consensus on meaning which is the basis for their interactive communication.
Thirdly, we sharpen the point of holism in translation or interpretation so that any separate word must be understood holistically with the whole text where it emerges, the interpretation of the text must be coherent with the whole philosophical background where the debate occurs, and further more the debate between different schools must be understandable in relation with the whole philosophical development in ancient China. For example, the way ancient Chinese philosophers understand language is different from westerners. They see language as a prescriptive system guiding people’s social behavior rather than a descriptive system representing the objective world. So, when we interpret any text in ancient China, the interpretation must be consistent with the way how they understand language instead of imposing western conceptual norms upon classic Chinese.
Attaching to holism, we will always be prepared to revise our current interpretation in light of more information and adjust our tranlation manuals to make it more coherent. Therefore, we can never have a final say about which is the correct one, but holism principle and humanity principle can help us decide which is a better one than other alternatives and constantly keep us open to a potential better one. In other words, the question of “correct translation or interpretatin” is problematic. It simply holds a realistic account of translation and interpretation by assuming a ‘correct’ meaning to find out. According to Quine’s radical translation theory, we may have several “correct” interpretations of the same target text that nevertheless are not compatible with each other. So, in case of evaluating different interpretations, “correct” should be replaced by “plausible”, “reasonable”, “coherent” and the like.
5. Which principle should we apply in selecting a radical translation "translation manual" for ancient Chinese? Why?
The principle of charity and that of humanity should be applied in selecting a radical translation “translation manual” for ancient Chinese.
According to Quine’s theory of radical translation, for one foreign text we may have several translation manuals that all make sense of the same text but may be incompatible with each other. A bad translation manual is to simply appeal to a dictionary which is actually a rough interpretive theory as well but may merely result in a fragmented interpretation of a text.
To avoid such traditional approach, we should turn to principle of charity and principle of humanity in selecting a “translation manual” in terms of radical translation. The principle of charity advocates the maximization of truth in one language. It assumes that we as human beings share same reason and capacities to know the world around us no matter how different our languages are. However, the worry with this principle is that it may impose two many contents of our own beliefs and ideas upon the target text in another language. This may work out a systematical interpretation of the text in ancient Chinese but probably make no sense for ancient Chinese whose ideas are just what we intend to obtain by the interpretation.
Hence, we should step further to take up the principle of humanity which aims at maximizing the reasonableness of a language rather than the truth of it. This principle implies that when we try to produce a radical translation “translation manual” we should not simply rule out an idea or belief that is not compatible with our knowledge but take them up as a plausible background for understanding the target text as long as it is humanly understandable in the context it emerges. Following the principle of humanity could to the highest extent enable us to get rid of the constraints of our own conventional ideas which may be just conceptual biases from the point of target language and capture as initial understanding of these texts as the ancient philosophers hold. Notably, the principle of charity and humanity always work holistically even though some conflicts might occur in some cases. To make the principle of charity most charitable, I incline to sumordinate it under principle of humanity, that is, when we evaluate a translation manual in accord with the principle of charity we should always assume that there may be knowledge of truth that can only be understandable in the context described according to the principle of humanity.
6. Western interpreters often assume that everyone accepts their "folk theory" of language(the theory that the meanings of terms are private ideas). Is there any danger in making that assumption in interpreting ancient Chinese philosophy? Explain.
Simply generalizing the western “folk theory” of language, these interpreters disguised the essential differences between western languages and classic Chinese. Given the assumption that theory of language and theory of mind are internally related with each other, the ancient Chinese philosophy will be significantly distorted the interpretation based on western “folk theory” of language.
The central focus of western fold theory of language is about how language relates to reality. A kind of language is a representive system of the reality. This theory treats mental ideas as meanings of words. These mental ideas are individual’s iner, private pictographses that are identical to the corresponding outer, objective objects in the real world. However, in ancient China there is no thought of mind-body dichotomy and therefore there is no tendency to recognize the relationship between private mental contents and outer material objects. In contrast, traditional Chinese theorists treat pictographs as productions of the historical, causal relation to the world. The meanings of terms come from conventional discourses delivered by generations. Meanings of terms does not originate from individual experence about the reality but from the communal experience in history of the society. Language in ancient China is a prescriptive system guilding social behavior rather than a descriptive system representing the reality. The pattern of language use has normative force because it also illustrates a shared bahavior form in society. Therefore, Chinese philosophy does not use defination as the form of expressing truth about the reality but concerns what Dao to guid social progress and how to rectify names to direct the operation of the Dao. For this reason, moral debates in ancient China would not encounter the puzzle that how the descriptive language could function as precriptive statements. The problem they face is the conflict between relativity of names and the pursuit of constant Dao.
If we simply impose western folk theory of language in interpreting Chinese philosophy, these fundamental differences will be camouflaged and as a result the interpretation will be misled to the wrong direction.
7. Explain how assigning different meanings to a word can affect the doctrine we attribute to an author. What about the reverse? Can the conviction that he/she must believe some doctrine affect what meaning we assign to a term? Explain.
According to Hansen, “meaning cannot be determined independently from belief”(p8). When we assign a meaning to a term, or an English equivalent to a Chinese word, we actually have already taken our conventional concetpual assumption into account. Here the meaning is given to the particular Chinese word or character nevertheless the meaning is in fact understood in English context which is the whole conceptual system including beliefs, ideas, theories and the forth.
The crucial problem is that not only one equivalent exists in English but many equivalent are used to interpret the same Chinese word by different translators and even by the same translator. This implies that when they assigning different meanings to a word they actually attributing different doctrines to the author. The deeper problem we face is that these doctrines may be incompatible with each other even though they all make sense of the same text. If this happens to a single translation, this must be a bad translation for the lack of coherence. If this happens to different versions of translation, then we need principles to help us evaluate which one of these alternatives is the best one for us to adopt.
To work out a coherent and competative translation, we appeal to principle of charity and principle of humanity. This indicates that it is not sufficient to make sense of islated sentence in an interpretation. We must also work out a coherent understanding of the conceptual pattern that the ancient Chinese philosophers may have. The pattern must have its own soundness in conformity with the author’s beliefs rather than a mixed bag of terms attributing to our conventional doctrines. Then “we can say that a philosopher has a certain concept only if we can give a reason for him to adopt the theory asscociated with the concept”(p9). So, according to Hansen, an intelligible interpretive theory should preceed translation. Only through this way could we have an unified interpretation of a text in ancient Chinese. For the meaning is not independent from belief, the meaning that we assign to a term is always affected by the doctrines that attribute to the author. The two elements are mutually connected but for the purpose of a systematic intpretation, the doctrines that we convict authors have should enjoy priority to the meaning assigned to terms.
8. "The most important thing for any new translation is to start with the original form of the Daodejing. Given recent archeological discoveries, we know that is not the traditional(Wang Bi)version. The Mawangdui version certainly better for getting the original intent of the author, Laozi." Discuss this theory of the text. Correct any errors you find.
Firstly, the theory of the text confused textual theory and interpretive theory. The important thing for a new translation is not what version of the Daode Jing it works on but what approach it adopts in the translation, such as the principles for make translation manual. Whatever version of Daode Jing a translator works on, the translation would be successful as long as the translation satisfies the standards of translation(depending on what standards we set).
Secondly, the principle assumped here is: the older, the better. This may be true for archeology or textual theory but must not be true for interpretive theory or translation. It is possible that the Mawangdui version may be the worst one for translation in terms of interpretive theory.
Thirdly, the Mawangdui version is older than traditional version but there is no reason to believe the way it is edited in this version is identical to the original one. As indicated by Guodian version, Mawangdui was significantly reedited. This means that the intent of the author has been distorted. Given the assumption that Daode Jing is a philosophical text, the traditional version may be more valuable for us to get the intent of the author because of the fact that Wangbi himself is a brilliant philosopher. (see items 3 for more clarification about distinction between textual and interpretive theory)
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
dao
1. Which of the following is most and least likely to be true?
Confucius learned from Laozi.
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao.
Explain why in each case. Bonus: Is any item in A-C verifiable enough for someone to claim to "know" it?
Confucius learned from Laozi.
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao.
Explain why in each case. Bonus: Is any item in A-C verifiable enough for someone to claim to "know" it?
These three items refer to three basic stories regarding Laozi in Chinese forklore. They are also traditionally accepted as historical facts even in intellectual area. However, more and more scholars raise doubt against the traditional view. Here is a rough stipulation of my view about these question.
Firstly I incline to hold that the second item is most likely to be true but only partly true. I admit the authorship of Laozi to Daode Jing but it is crazy to believe that Laozi is the single author of the book. From the textual differences among the new discovered Guodian version, Mawangdui and the traditional Wangbi version, it is clear that the text of Daode Jing has been changing along the line of time. Some new verses or chapters are added in later versions. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the text of Daode Jing is probably compiled by a group of contributors. But this view does not suggest that as some scholar suspected Laozi is not an real figure in history but a metaphor of the authorship by accouting the term Laozi as an old master. In contrast, I hold that Laozi is most likely to be the initiative author of the book. Suppose the book was edited many times by different editors who are likely to be contributors of some messages in the book. In addition to the fact that in ancient China many pieces of a book are often added anonemously, it is reasonable to believe that any one of these editor has no conficence to claim himself as the author. The more possible way he follows is to authorize the Daode Jing by the name of initiator of this book. Above all, I conclude that Laozi is the initial author of Daode Jing who wrote some verses or chapters that shape the basic spirit of the book.
The story of item 1 is popular among people but most likely to be untrue. The earliest material recording the meeting between Confucius and Laozi is in Zhuangzi. There are also records about the story in Shi Ji and Li Ji which nevertheless are much later than Zhuangzi. Besides the metephorical style of Zhuangzi, another barrier preventing us from believing records in it as historical fact is that no any information indicates that Mencius who is known to live before Zhuangzi know about Laozi. Mencius dedicated all his life to defending Confucianism by criticizing all opponents but singularly igored the opposition between Laozi and Confucius. This seems impossible. There is also no information regarding Laozi in Mozi who lived between Confucius and Mencius. In short, my conclusion is that Laozi is a person who lived after Mencius and therefore it is impossible that Mencius learned from Laozi.
I suspect the truth of the story in item 3 but have no evidence to demonstrate that it is untrue. Therefore, I put it between item 3 and 1.
For all kinds of uncertainty of the philosophical texts in Pre-Qin period, there is always other alternatives to interpret these texts and their relationship. So, no one of the three item is verifiable enough for one to claim he firmly knows it.
3. Should we distinguish clearly between textual theory and interpretive theory? Why or why not? Give an example of how they might be confused.
We should clearly distinguish between textual theory and interpretive theory. Firstly, the theoretical interests in textual theory and interpretive theory are siganificantly different. Textual theory pays more attention to archeological aspect of a text while interpretive theory focuses more on conceptual scheme of a text. Therefore, a new version discovered always interests textual theorists and will have significant influence on the curent textual theories even if the new discovered text in fact is a bad version from the point of view of interpretive theory. In contrast, although a new discovered text will attract interpretive interest and even have some influence on their interpretation on the traditional text, theorists focusing on interpretation are more interested in the debates he involved in.
Secondly, even if the new discovered version is qualified to be closer to the original, this does not guarantee that interpretation on it will be more productive than that on the traditional one. The point is that the intellectual value of an interpretation is not based on which text it works on but the interaction between interpretors involved in the same philosophical debate based on the same text. Of course one interpretor can try to interpret the new discovered version but this may have no busniess with the debate based on the tradition one.
Thirdly, the specific intellectual interest of an interpretor may lead him to a particular version. As Hansen argued, he is dedicated to the philosophical interpretation of the Daode Jing while comparing with the traditional version, Mawangdui version pays more attention on political aspect in its edition and therefore has less philosophical value for him. So, the traditional version of Daode Jing is much more preferable to him than the Mawangdui version.
Example: when one claims that the Mawangdui version of Daode Jing is a better version as the target of interpretion for the reason that the version is much closer to the original than the trodional version. Interpretive theory has its own specific reasons to work on particular version of text but the reason at least must not be the one offered by textual theory.
5. Is holism important to interpretation? Why or why not? Does this mean that we can never find a "correct" translation/interpretation? Explain.
Yes, holism is important to interpretation. Firstly, different from dictionary-like traditional approach which treats translation prior to interpretive theory of language and therefore results in fragmented interpretation, we assert that interpretive theory preceeds translation in order to generate a systematical interpretation of certain text. Beginning with this, a holistic nature of meaning is presupposed when we adopt principles of charity and humanity. “We attribute beliefs and meaning in the same theory”(p11). Since the principle of humanity purports to found out the internal connection between beliefs, it requires us to understand how a text could be understandable within the context where the author wrote it and fore us to have a presupposition of a whole conceptual system in each case.
Secondly, to hold on holism is to reject the traditional distortion of the philosophical development and the nature of ancient Chinese philosphical discourse. The Neo-confucian theory as the ruling theory simply presupposes two assumptions in order to protect ifself from rival criticisms. The first is the fragmented-schools view according to which different schools internally developped up without critical interactions with other schools. In contrast, we admit that all schools involved with the debates upon topics that they concern in their time and benefited from these debates. This gives us a holistical context to understand their discourse in a inter-related manner. The second is the meaning-change hypothesis which sugguests what these schools talked about are fundamentally different things that can be understandable only within in one particular school. This means that critiques from other schools always miss point and therefore does not matter to Confucianism. Reversely, we assume that different schools share some common philosophical interests and endorse some basic consensus on meaning which is the basis for their interactive communication.
Thirdly, we sharpen the point of holism in translation or interpretation so that any separate word must be understood holistically with the whole text where it emerge, the interpretation of the text must be coherent with the whole philosophical background where the debate occurs, and further more the debate between different schools must be understandable in relation with the whole philosophicla development in ancient China. For example, the way ancient Chinese philosophers understand language is different from westerners. They see language as s prescriptive system guiding people’s social behavior ranther than a descriptive system representing the objective world. So, when we interpret any text in ancient China, the interpretation must be consistent with the way how they understand language instead of imposing western conceptual norms upon classic Chinese.
Attaching to holism, we will always be prepared to revise our current interpretation in light of more information and adjust out tranlation manuals to make it more coherent. Therefore, we can never have a final say about which is the correct one, but holism principle and humanity principle can help us decide which is a better one than other alternatives and constantly keep us open to a potential better one. In other words, the question of “correct translation or interpretatin” is problematic. It simply holds a realistic account of translation and interpretation by assuming a ‘correct’ meaning to find out. According to Quine’s radical translation theory, we may have several “correct” interpretions of the same target text that nevertheless are not campatible with each other. So, in case of evaluating different interpretations, “correct” should be replaced by “plausible”, “reasonable”, “coherent” and other this kind of words.
6. Which principle should we apply in selecting a radical translation "translation manual" for ancient Chinese? Why?
The principle of charity and that of humanity should be applied in selecting a radical translation “translation manual” for ancient Chinese. The principle of charity
According to Quine’s theory of radical translation, for one foreign text we may have several translation manuals that all make sense of the same text but may be incompatible with each other. A bad translation manual is to simply appeal to a dictionary which is actually a rough interpretive theory as well but may merely result in an fragmented interpretation of a text. To avoid such traditional approach, we should turn to principle of charity developped and principle of humanity developped by some philosophers in selecting a “translation manual” in terms of radical translation. The priciple of charity advocates the maximization of truth in one language. It assumes that we as human beings shares some reason and capacities to know the world around us no matter how different our languages are. However, the worry with this principle is that it may impose two many contents of our own beliefs and ideas upon the target text in another language. This may work out a systematical interpretation of the text in ancient Chinese but probably make no sense for ancient Chinese whose ideas who just intend to obtain by the interpretation. Hence, we should step further to take up the principle of humanity which aims at maximizing the reasonableness of a language ranther than the truth of it. This principle implies that when we try to produce a radical translation “translation manual” we should not simply rule out an idea or belief that are not compatible with our knowledge but take them up as a plausible background for understanding the target text as long as it is humanly understandable in the context it emerges. Following the principle of humanity could to the highest extent enable us to get rid of the constraints of our own conventional ideas which may be just conceptual biases from the point of target language and capture as initial understanding of these texts as the ancient philosophers hold. Notably, the principle of charity and humanity always work holistically even though some conflicts meight occur in some cases. To make the principle of charity most charitable, I incline to sumordinate it under principle of humanity, that is, when we evaluate a translation manual in accord with the principle of charity we should always assume that there may be knowledge of truth that can only be understandable in the context described according to the principle of humanity.
7. Western interpreters often assume that everyone accepts their "folk theory" of language(the theory that the meanings of terms are private ideas). Is there any danger in making that assumption in interpreting ancient Chinese philosophy? Explain.
Simply generalizing the western “folk theory” of language, these interpreters disguised the essential differences between western languages and classic Chinese. Given the assumption that theory of language and theory of mind are internally related with each other, the ancient Chinese philosophy will be significantly distorted the interpretation based on western “folk theory” of language.
The central focus of western fold theory of language is about how language relates to reality. A kind of language is a representive system of the reality. This theory treats mental ideas as meanings of words. These mental ideas are individual’s iner, private pictographses that are identical to the corresponding outer, objective objects in the real world. However, in ancient China there is no thought of mind-body dichotomy and therefore there is no tendency to recognize the relationship between private mental contents and outer material objects. In contrast, traditional Chinese theorists treat pictographs as productions of the historical, causal relation to the world. The meanings of terms come from conventional discourses delivered by generations. Meanings of terms does not originate from individual experence about the reality but from the communal experience in history of the society. Language in ancient China is a prescriptive system guilding social behavior rather than a descriptive system representing the reality. The pattern of language use have normative force because the pattern of language use also illustrates a shared bahavior form in society. Therefore, Chinese philosophy does not use defination as the form of expressing truth about the reality but concerns what Dao to guid social progress and how to rectify names to direct the operation of the Dao. For this reason, moral debates in ancient China would not encounter the puzzle that how the descriptive language could function as precriptive statements. The problem they face is the conflict between relativity of names and the pursuit of constant Dao. If we simply impose western folk theory of language in interpreting Chinese philosophy, these fundamental differences will be camouflaged and as a result the interpretation will be misled to the wrong direction.
8. Explain how assigning different meanings to a word can affect the doctrine we attribute to an author. What about the reverse? Can the conviction that he/she must believe some doctrine affect what meaning we assign to a term? Explain.
According to Hansen, “meaning cannot be determined independently from belief”(p8). When we assign a meaning to a term, or an English equivalent to a Chinese word, we actually have already taken our conventional concetpual assumption into account. Here the meaning is given to the particular Chinese word or character nevertheless the meaning is in fact understood in English context which is the whole conceptual system including beliefs, ideas, theories and the forth. The crucial problem is that not only one equivalent exists in English but many equivalent are used to interpret the same Chinese word by different translators and even by the same translator. This implies that when they assigning different meanings to a word they actually attributing different doctrines to the author. The deeper problem we face is that these doctrines may be incompatible with each other even though they all make sense of the same text. If this happens to a single translation, this must be a bad translation for the lack of coherence. If this happens to different versions of translation, then we need principles to help us evaluate which one of these alternatives is the best one for us to adopt. To work out a coherent and competative translation, we appeal to principle of charity and principle of humanity. This indicates that it is not sufficient to make sense of islated sentence in an interpretation. We must also work out a coherent understanding of the conceptual pattern that the ancient Chinese philosophers may have. The pattern must have its own soundness in conformity with the author’s beliefs rather than a mixed bag of terms attributing to our conventional doctrines. Then “we can say that a philosopher has a certain concept only if we can give a reason for him to adopt the theory asscociated with the concept”(p9). So, according to Hansen, an intelligible interpretive theory should preceed translation. Only through this way could we have an unified interpretation of a text in ancient Chinese. For the meaning is not independent from belief, the meaning that we assign to a term is always affected by the doctrines that attribute to the author. The two elements are mutually connected but for the purpose of a systematic intpretation, the doctrines that we convict authors have should enjoy priority to the meaning assigned to terms.
9. "The most important thing for any new translation is to start with the original form of the Daodejing. Given recent archeological discoveries, we know that is not the traditional(Wang Bi)version. The Mawangdui version certainly better for getting the original intent of the author, Laozi." Discuss this theory of the text. Correct any errors you find.
Firstly, the theory of the text confused textual theory and interpretive theory. The important thing for a new translation is not what version of the Daode Jing it works on but what approach it adopts in the translation, such as the principles for make translation manual. Whatever version of Daode Jing a translator works on, the translation would be successful as long as the translation satisfies the standards of translation(depending on what standards we set).
Secondly, the principle assumped here is: the older, the better. This may be true for archeology or textual theory but must not be true for interpretive theory or translation. It is possible that the Mawangdui version may be the worst one for translation in terms of interpretive theory.
Thirdly, the Mawangdui version is older than traditional version but there is no reason to believe the way it is edited in this version is identical to the original one. As indicated by Guodian version, Mawangdui was significantly reedited. This means that the intent of the author has been distorted. Given the assumption that Daode Jing is a philosophical text, the traditional version may be more valuable for us to get the intent of the author because of the fact that Wangbi himself is a brilliant philosopher.
10. Diagram two ways to analyze the grammar of this statement from the Analects. "君君臣臣父父子子" (ruler ruler minister minister father father son son). Argue for one of them using a radical translation argument.
君君 臣臣 父父 子子
君君臣臣 父父子子
君君 臣臣 父父 子子
君君臣臣 父父子子
Monday, March 7, 2011
assignments
3. Should we distinguish clearly between textual theory and interpretive theory? Why or why not? Give an example of how they might be confused.
5. Is holism important to interpretation? Why or why not? Does this mean that we can never find a "correct" translation/interpretation? Explain.
Yes, holism is important to interpretation. Firstly, different from dictionary-like traditional approach which treats translation prior to interpretive theory of language and results in fragmented interpretation, we assert that interpretive theory preceeds translation in order to generate a systematical interpretation of certain text. Beginning with this, a holistic nature of meaning is presupposed when we adopt principles of charity and humanity. “We attribute beliefs and meaning in the same theory”(p11). Since the principle of humanity purports to found out the internal connection between beliefs, it requires us to understand how a text could be understandable within the context where the author wrote it and fore us to have a presupposition of a whole conceptual system in each case.
Secondly, to hold on holism is to reject the traditional distortion of the philosophical development and the nature of ancient Chinese philosphical discourse. The Neo-confucian theory as the ruling theory, to pretect itself from criticisms from rival theories, simply presupposes two assumptions
6. Which principle should we apply in selecting a radical translation "translation manual" for ancient Chinese? Why?
Appeal to a translation paradigm is the traditional approach of dealing with ancient Chinese but the problem of it is that it simply takes our conventional account of a term for granted when it assigns an equivalent in English to a Chinese term.
The principle of charity and that of humanity should be applied in selecting a radical translation “translation manual” for ancient Chinese. The principle of charity
According to Quine’s theory of radical translation, for one foreign text we may have several translation manuals that all make sense of the same text but may be incompatible with each other. A bad translation manual is to simply appeal to a dictionary which is actually a rough interpretive theory as well but may merely result in an fragmented interpretation of a text. To avoid such traditional approach, we should turn to principle of charity developped and principle of humanity developped by some philosophers in selecting a “translation manual” in terms of radical translation. The priciple of charity advocates the maximization of truth in one language. It assumes that we as human beings shares some reason and capacities to know the world around us no matter how different our languages are. However, the worry with this principle is that it may impose two many contents of our own beliefs and ideas upon the target text in another language. This may work out a systematical interpretation of the text in ancient Chinese but probably make no sense for ancient Chinese whose ideas who just intend to obtain by the interpretation. Hence, we should step further to take up the principle of humanity which aims at maximizing the reasonableness of a language ranther than the truth of it. This principle implies that when we try to produce a radical translation “translation manual” we should not simply rule out an idea or belief that are not compatible with our knowledge but take them up as a plausible background for understanding the target text as long as it is humanly understandable in the context it emerges. Following the principle of humanity could to the highest extent enable us to get rid of the constraints of our own conventional ideas which may be just conceptual biases from the point of target language and capture as initial understanding of these texts as the ancient philosophers hold. Notably, the principle of charity and humanity always work holistically even though some conflicts meight occur in some cases. To make the principle of charity most charitable, I incline to sumordinate it under principle of humanity, that is, when we evaluate a translation manual in accord with the principle of charity we should always assume that there may be knowledge of truth that can only be understandable in the context described according to the principle of humanity.
As I said, the question is really about Quine's triangulation strategy in his approach to radical translation as a way of getting access to inter-linguistic meaning. What he notices is that we can assign any meaning (translation equivalent in our home language) we want to the speakers of the other language as long as we are prepared to credit them with certain beliefs--and vice versa. If we want to make it out that they have certain belief, we can do it by assigning meaning to the requisite lexical items (and syntax structures). In other words the two, meaning and belief, are inter-related and change systematically in relation to each other. Given that we have ways of assessing the beliefs (i.e., their verification conditions (stimulus meaning) or their truth (Davidson) or their coherence with desires and situation (Grandy)) we can put a metric on the result of a systematic attribution of meaning in a translation manual when applied to the actual linguistic production from the relevant community. We have a better translation manual when it results in a "better" set of beliefs/assertions attributed to them.
7. Western interpreters often assume that everyone accepts their "folk theory" of language(the theory that the meanings of terms are private ideas). Is there any danger in making that assumption in interpreting ancient Chinese philosophy? Explain.
8. Explain how assigning different meanings to a word can affect the doctrine we attribute to an author. What about the reverse? Can the conviction that he/she must believe some doctrine affect what meaning we assign to a term? Explain.
According to Hansen, “meaning cannot be determined independently from belief”(p8). When we assign a meaning to a term, or an English equivalent to a Chinese word, we actually have already taken our conventional concetpual assumption into account. Here the meaning is given to the particular Chinese word or character nevertheless the meaning is in fact understood in English context which is the whole conceptual system including beliefs, ideas, theories and the forth. The crucial problem is that not only one equivalent exists in English but many equivalent are used to interpret the same Chinese word by different translators and even by the same translator. This implies that when they assigning different meanings to a word they actually attributing different doctrines to the author. The deeper problem we face is that these doctrines may be incompatible with each other even though they all make sense of the same text. If this happens to a single translation, this must be a bad translation for the lack of coherence. If this happens to different versions of translation, then we need principles to help us evaluate which one of these alternatives is the best one for us to adopt. To work out a coherent and competative translation, we appeal to principle of charity and principle of humanity. This indicates that it is not sufficient to make sense of islated sentence in an interpretation. We must also work out a coherent understanding of the conceptual pattern that the ancient Chinese philosophers may have. The pattern must have its own soundness in conformity with the author’s beliefs rather than a mixed bag of terms attributing to our conventional doctrines. Then “we can say that a philosopher has a certain concept only if we can give a reason for him to adopt the theory asscociated with the concept”(p9). So, according to Hansen, an intelligible interpretive theory should preceed translation. Only through this way could we have an unified interpretation of a text in ancient Chinese. For the meaning is not independent from belief, the meaning that we assign to a term is always affected by the doctrines that attribute to the author. The two elements are mutually connected but for the purpose of a systematic intpretation, the doctrines that we convict authors have should enjoy priority to the meaning assigned to terms.
9. "The most important thing for any new translation is to start with the original form of the Daodejing. Given recent archeological discoveries, we know that is not the traditional(Wang Bi)version. The Mawangdui version certainly better for getting the original intent of the author, Laozi." Discuss this theory of the text. Correct any errors you find.
10. Diagram two ways to analyze the grammar of this statement from the Analects. "君君臣臣父父子子" (ruler ruler minister minister father father son son). Argue for one of them using a radical translation argument.
君君 臣臣 父父 子子
君君臣臣 父父子子
君君 臣臣 父父 子子
君君臣臣 父父子子
Friday, March 4, 2011
final statement of the two principles of justice
First principle
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with an similar system of liberties for all.
Second principle
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
First priority
Priority of liberty
Second priority
Priority of justice over efficiency and welfare
A Theory of Justice, revised edition, p266.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with an similar system of liberties for all.
Second principle
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
First priority
Priority of liberty
Second priority
Priority of justice over efficiency and welfare
A Theory of Justice, revised edition, p266.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Mill defends liberty
Mill defends liberty
Absoluteness of his defense
Direct utilitarian: Principle of utility in broad sense
Indirect: inconsistent
Maximizing happiness
Categorical
Dislike, disapproval, distress should also be taken into account in accord to utilitarianism.
Calculation
Progressive
Consumption Desire
Enjoy nature
Personal happiness
Society happiness A's a whole
General rules
Consensus
Clash between them
Here indirect ut,
Absolute rule may be based on utilitarianism on higher level
Unconditional
Intuitive thinking: lower level
Reflective thinking: higher level
Free individuality development
Good itself
Good for goals
Choosing in range of choice
People just following customs should be tolerated
Continous effective choices
Habit choice
Voluntarily to slavery
Absoluteness of his defense
Direct utilitarian: Principle of utility in broad sense
Indirect: inconsistent
Maximizing happiness
Categorical
Dislike, disapproval, distress should also be taken into account in accord to utilitarianism.
Calculation
Progressive
Consumption Desire
Enjoy nature
Personal happiness
Society happiness A's a whole
General rules
Consensus
Clash between them
Here indirect ut,
Absolute rule may be based on utilitarianism on higher level
Unconditional
Intuitive thinking: lower level
Reflective thinking: higher level
Free individuality development
Good itself
Good for goals
Choosing in range of choice
People just following customs should be tolerated
Continous effective choices
Habit choice
Voluntarily to slavery
Rawls
Assumption: Equal ability of develop individuality
Quality
Bargain utility
Mill sees liberty A's means for goals but also an element of that goal.
Condition of sacrifice before intervention
Aggregating Notion
Zhang Ming
Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore
Talk with Hansen
Talk with Hansen
After the class yesterday Hansen and us went to have a caffe at the caffe club. He is so good at speaking and fond of speaking. It fine to listen to his speech. One impressive passage is about interpretation of the dao in Daode Jing. The dao is like water following the lowest pass along the valley. Two dimensional map is a metaphor to three dimensional map, likewise three dimensional map is a metaphor to four dimensional map, namely, guiding discourse.
After the class yesterday Hansen and us went to have a caffe at the caffe club. He is so good at speaking and fond of speaking. It fine to listen to his speech. One impressive passage is about interpretation of the dao in Daode Jing. The dao is like water following the lowest pass along the valley. Two dimensional map is a metaphor to three dimensional map, likewise three dimensional map is a metaphor to four dimensional map, namely, guiding discourse.
Zhang Ming
Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Justice
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue. Likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is not made right by greater goods shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by a larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in just society liberties of equal citizenship are taken A's settled; rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining, or to calculus of social interests. The only thing that permit us to acquiesce an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one. Analogously an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary for avoiding even greater injustice. A's first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.
A theory of justice, Rawls, p3.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The values I advocate
Equality is the most fundamental value for an institution. Then, what follow it are liberty, fairness, impartiality, democracy, constutionality and so on.
If I am disabled in mind, do I have a right to vote? You may say I have no capacity of reasoning, then I am able to vote. But the fact is that I have interest in myself, and therefore have the right to vote on relevant issues. So, even I have no reason or rationality, I still have competing right to vote. I can have my representative who should be my kin relative. He or she will be entitle by me to vote for me.
If I am disabled in mind, do I have a right to vote? You may say I have no capacity of reasoning, then I am able to vote. But the fact is that I have interest in myself, and therefore have the right to vote on relevant issues. So, even I have no reason or rationality, I still have competing right to vote. I can have my representative who should be my kin relative. He or she will be entitle by me to vote for me.
君君臣臣父父子子
Diagram two ways to analyze the grammar of this statement from the Analects. "君君臣臣父父子子" (ruler ruler minister minister father father son son). Argue for one of them using a radical translation argument.
君君 臣臣 父父 子子
君君臣臣 父父子子
君君 臣臣 父父 子子
君君臣臣 父父子子
The older, the better?
"The most important thing for any new translation is to start with the original form of the Daodejing. Given recent archeological discoveries, we know that is not the traditional(Wang Bi)version. The Mawangdui version certainly better for getting the original intent of the author, Laozi." Discuss this theory of the text. Correct any errors you find.
Doctrine and meaning
Explain how assigning different meanings to a word can affect the doctrine we attribute to an author. What about the reverse? Can the conviction that he/she must believe some doctrine affect what meaning we assign to a term? Explain.
Danger of generalization of folk theory
Western interpreters often assume that everyone accepts their "folk theory" of language(the theory that the meanings of terms are private ideas). Is there any danger in making that assumption in interpreting ancient Chinese philosophy? Explain.
Principle for translation manual
Which principle should we apply in selecting a radical translation "translation manual" for ancient Chinese? Why?
Is holism important to interpretation?
Is holism important to interpretation? Why or why not? Does this mean that we can never find a "correct" translation/interpretation? Explain.
Radical translation and observable
Explain how the triangulation method of radical translation tries to "solve" the problem that meaning is not "observable". What "observable" should we use instead?
Textual theory and interpretive theory
Should we distinguish clearly between textual theory and interpretive theory? Why or why not? Give an example of how they might be confused.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Daode Jing II
天下皆知美之为美，斯恶已；天下皆知善之为善，斯不善已。
The whole world recognizes the beautiful as the beautiful, yet this is only the ugly; the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad.
故有无相生；难易相成；长短相形；高下相倾；音声相和；前后相随。
Thus Something and Nothing produce each other;
The difficult and the easy complement each other;
The long and the short off-set each other;
The high and the low incline towards each other;
Not and sound harmonize with each other;
Before and after follow each other.
是以圣人处无为之事，行不言之教。
Therefore the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practises the teaching that uses no words.
万物作焉儿不辞；生而不有；为而不恃；功成而弗居。
The myriad creatures rise from it yet it claims no authority;
It gives them life yet claims no possession;
It benefits them yet exacts no gratitude;
It accomplishes its task yet lays claim to no merit.
夫唯弗居，是以不去。
It is because it lays claim to no merit
that its merit never deserts it.
The whole world recognizes the beautiful as the beautiful, yet this is only the ugly; the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad.
故有无相生；难易相成；长短相形；高下相倾；音声相和；前后相随。
Thus Something and Nothing produce each other;
The difficult and the easy complement each other;
The long and the short off-set each other;
The high and the low incline towards each other;
Not and sound harmonize with each other;
Before and after follow each other.
是以圣人处无为之事，行不言之教。
Therefore the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practises the teaching that uses no words.
万物作焉儿不辞；生而不有；为而不恃；功成而弗居。
The myriad creatures rise from it yet it claims no authority;
It gives them life yet claims no possession;
It benefits them yet exacts no gratitude;
It accomplishes its task yet lays claim to no merit.
夫唯弗居，是以不去。
It is because it lays claim to no merit
that its merit never deserts it.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Belief, knowledge and Wu-wei
Explain how belief and knowledge are expressed in Classical Chinese. Why would that be important in understanding the meaning of Wu-wei / Lack-deem:do?
Topic one: Laozi, Daode Jing and Confucius
Which of the following is most and least likely to be true?
Confucius learned from Laozi.
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao.
Explain why in each case. Bonus: Is any item in A-C verifiable enough for someone to claim to "know" it?
The three basic facts about Laozi mentioned in the three items may be the merely facts we can find about Laozi in materials. Before responding to the required question, another relevant question should be considered at first, that is, who is Laozi. On this question, I more intend to support such a view that Laozi is not a single person existing in history but a group of person in history who together held the similar opinions as indicated in Daode Jing and finally formed the book together in the line of time. The reasons I have follow like this: Firstly, the term of Laozi could also be interpreted as "old (wise) man" except as the name of a person. This point indicates that Laozi may be used by descendants to refer some ancestor or ancestors who formed the book Daode Jing. Secondly, Laozi.Once the identification of Laozi is confirmed, responses to these items will be clear.
Confucius learned from Laozi. Indeed, evidence supporting this statement could be found in Analects and Taoist materials. It is understandable that versions from the two traditions are different on the same facts but
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing. As discussed above, the formulation of the book experienced a long time. Therefore we have reason to believe that the name of Laozi is used to refer to a group of persons who contributed to the book rather than a single person. Let's suppose this, the final version of the book was edited by a certain person who is certainly not Laozi, then who do he use the name to refer? There are possibilities. One is that Laozi refers to the person who initially put forth the basic idea of Daoist thoughts, but this ignores the fact that the book was indeed formed by all contributors and their contributions. The second one is that Laozi refers to a group of persons who contributed to the book anonymously.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao. The keeper of the pass also means the god of death. Then, Laozi went west could also be understood as he passed away. Then the book is wrote before his death rather than he left to other place.
None of the three items could be verified by factual evidence. They are all stories told in a mysterious but historically way. Therefore, no body could be able to claim that he or she know they are true.
Confucius learned from Laozi.
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao.
Explain why in each case. Bonus: Is any item in A-C verifiable enough for someone to claim to "know" it?
The three basic facts about Laozi mentioned in the three items may be the merely facts we can find about Laozi in materials. Before responding to the required question, another relevant question should be considered at first, that is, who is Laozi. On this question, I more intend to support such a view that Laozi is not a single person existing in history but a group of person in history who together held the similar opinions as indicated in Daode Jing and finally formed the book together in the line of time. The reasons I have follow like this: Firstly, the term of Laozi could also be interpreted as "old (wise) man" except as the name of a person. This point indicates that Laozi may be used by descendants to refer some ancestor or ancestors who formed the book Daode Jing. Secondly, Laozi.Once the identification of Laozi is confirmed, responses to these items will be clear.
Confucius learned from Laozi. Indeed, evidence supporting this statement could be found in Analects and Taoist materials. It is understandable that versions from the two traditions are different on the same facts but
Laozi wrote the Daode Jing. As discussed above, the formulation of the book experienced a long time. Therefore we have reason to believe that the name of Laozi is used to refer to a group of persons who contributed to the book rather than a single person. Let's suppose this, the final version of the book was edited by a certain person who is certainly not Laozi, then who do he use the name to refer? There are possibilities. One is that Laozi refers to the person who initially put forth the basic idea of Daoist thoughts, but this ignores the fact that the book was indeed formed by all contributors and their contributions. The second one is that Laozi refers to a group of persons who contributed to the book anonymously.
Laozi went west and met "keeper of the pass" who requested him to write his dao. The keeper of the pass also means the god of death. Then, Laozi went west could also be understood as he passed away. Then the book is wrote before his death rather than he left to other place.
None of the three items could be verified by factual evidence. They are all stories told in a mysterious but historically way. Therefore, no body could be able to claim that he or she know they are true.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
A chance to be reborn in mind
I know it is the only chance for me to be reborn in mind now. Once lose it, I will never get again. But we know it is painful to experience such a process. The fact is that I need to do that for I am not satisfied with my current situation. I need change in my lifestyle. This is the mere chance available for me.
What does the chance mean for my life? It will bring me to a stage of life, a more free and beautiful stage. Ask myself, am I enjoying my life? No. There are many hinders before me, some of which inhabit in myself and some out side of me.
To renew my mind require to keep my mind open to any new things and give up traditional one I am holding to.
What does the chance mean for my life? It will bring me to a stage of life, a more free and beautiful stage. Ask myself, am I enjoying my life? No. There are many hinders before me, some of which inhabit in myself and some out side of me.
To renew my mind require to keep my mind open to any new things and give up traditional one I am holding to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)