儒家心性论与当代伦理实践

儒家心性论思想是一个历史范畴,随着时代的变化不断深化,并成为我国传统文化史上的核心内容。在当前社会转型期,发掘儒家心性之学的价值并运用于当代伦理实践,从而强固人们内在精神生活的根据,是时代提出的迫切需要。     

仁学VS儒学：论孔孟区分于五经和宋明的必要——从符号学和解释学角度看

一百年来各种不同类型的儒学研究均认同<论语>的思想,因此<论语>宜于成为今日儒学各派求同存异的基础.为了强调<论语>的基本性和普适性,有必要首先区分由儒学(四书五经和宋明理学)与仁学(孔孟原始思想)所分别代表的两个不同"学科对象".仁学对象和儒学对象的区隔,或仁学从儒学中的分离,还可有助于孔子伦理学思想和现代社会-学术-思想的实际"接轨",以使作为纯伦理学思想的仁学得以有效参与世界范围内的学术思想理论交流.仁学除了作为孔孟学之原始对象外,经合理的现代化解释后,还可以作为人类普适的现世伦理理想模型而推广于世界.儒学是一种特殊的民族历史经验,仁学则内涵着一种普遍的人性经验.     

“女子”——“小人”辨——谈孔子的妇女观

对孔子的“唯小人与女子为难养,近之则不孙,远之则怨”的一般理解是:孔子把女性与小人相提并论,是看不起女性。其实,这是一种误解。事实上,“唯小人与女子为难养”中的“小人”和“女人”是指“男中小人”和“女中小人”,“小”和“女”都不是性别评价,而是道德评价。     

Cooperative learning vs Confucian heritage culture's collectivism: confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch

Asian countries with Confucian heritage culture (CHC) such as China, Vietnam, Singapore, Korea and Japan have been proven to share characteristics of a collectivist society. Researchers agree that this collectivist mentality strongly supports cooperation that CHC's learners/workers best perform in groups. However, little is known about the other side of the coin. Whilst applying a method born in one culture to another, cultural differences have been forgotten. The so-called global application has led to a situation in which a Western model is forced to launch in a completely new and different context. This new context and the existing cultural values are not always incorporated into the implementation of a Western concept of cooperative learning. Consequently, it does not necessarily follow that all forms of cooperative learning will surely succeed within a CHC environment. As a result of ignoring, stereotyping and underestimating cultural and educational characteristics, in CHC countries, the implementation of constructivism and one of its applications—cooperative learning—has ended up in failures, suspicion or resistance. The authors would like to question (1) the fixed assumption that “group-work surely works in CHC countries” and (2) the domination of developmentalism in education nowadays and its mismatch with cultural assets. With this paper, the authors contribute to the recent call for culturally appropriate pedagogy.