It is a platitude that belief is subject to a standard of correctness: a belief is correct if and only if it is true. But not all standards of correctness are authoritative or binding. Some standards of correctness may be arbitrary, unjustified or outrightly wrong. Given this, one challenge to proponents of the truth norm of belief, is to answer what Korsgaard (1996) calls ‘the normative question’. Is the truth norm of belief authoritative or binding regarding what one ought to (...) or may believe? If so, what grounds its authority? The aim of this paper is to offer a novel answer to the grounding challenge on a reason-based normative framework. I develop and defend a practice-based account of the truth norm, according to which, the authority of the truth norm of belief is grounded in what I call the T-practice, a justified social practice that functions to facilitate knowledge production, maintenance, and social cooperation. (shrink)

Natural selection is a general process that operates in different populations. To characterise natural selection as a mechanism within the framework of the new mechanistic philosophy, it is required to identify a pertinent phenomenon for which natural selection is responsible. Firstly, every case identified by evolutionary biologists as instances of natural selection must align with this mechanistic characterisation. Secondly, natural selection should genuinely be responsible for the attributed phenomenon. While philosophers often posit producing adaptation as the quintessential phenomenon, Pérez-González and (...) Luque challenge this perspective, contending that not all instances of natural selection are cases where natural selection produces adaptation. This paper further supports Pérez-González and Luque’s objection and demonstrates that natural selection is also not responsible for the increased frequency of traits with a greater expected number of offspring. Furthermore, the paper argues that even if there is a phenomenon that allows for the mechanistic characterisation of natural selection to encompass all instances, it is improbable that natural selection assumes responsibility for it. Consequently, characterising natural selection as a mechanism emerges as an implausible stance. (shrink)

Aesthetic experiences play an important role in human culture and spiritual life and are closely related to aesthetic perception and appreciation of art, music, literature and natural landscapes. With the development of neuroscience and cognitive psychology, our understanding of aesthetic experiences continues to deepen; in this context, the study of neuroplasticity has attracted widespread attention. This study explores in detail how this process affects the perception of aesthetic cognition, thereby enhancing the aesthetic experience in several key ways. The study finds (...) that neuroplasticity plays a role in the evolution of an individual’s perception and appreciation of beauty, as it facilitates adjustments in perception, attention, emotion, and cross-perceptual integration based on individual experiences. These findings provide a theoretical basis for deepening the perception and appreciation of beauty and insights to better understand and advance the aesthetic experience provided by art, music and literature. Future research will explore how to maximise the use of neuroplasticity to enhance the quality and depth of the aesthetic experience, advance the field of aesthetic psychology and art research and further enrich and satisfy individuals’ perception and experience of beauty. (shrink)

「三教合一」的命題猶如一口古井， 看似陳舊， 往深處提煉， 又可伸觸潛藏於井底的水脈。 《君師道合：晚明儒者的三教合一論述》透過管志道、楊起元和周汝登，揭示晚明三教合流思維的演變，以及三教合一思想與君道、師道的關係。尤其值得思考的是，晚明儒者對明太祖的歷史記憶與政治認同，對政教統合的認可 ，試圖以「三教觀」來鞏固「君師道合」的想法，置於晚明的思想語境，到底說明了什麼？由此進一歩探索晚明三教思想的思維特色、三教的政治性意涵以及儒者對現實政教關懷等問題。 本書選擇管志道、楊起元和周汝登為本書論述主要對象，大致有以下幾個原因：（一）他們是廣義的陽明後學，在學承和個人學習經驗有所交錯，例如羅汝芳是楊起元的老師，但管志道和周汝登二人，亦深受羅汝芳啟發；（二） 三人皆有深刻的三教思想關懷，而其三教思想扣緊著當時的政治、社會與學術重要問題；（三）彼此有深刻的論學往來，其中以管志道和楊起元，以及楊起元和周汝登的情誼最深。不僅有書信來往，也常互贈詩歌；（四）三人活 動的時間，集中於隆慶、萬曆期間，並且都是南京學圈的重要儒者。最為關鍵是，三人獨特的三教觀和論述，有所交鋒又各有側重，因此適切成為理解晚明三教論述建構與發展的思想社群。值得留意的是，在《明儒學案》〈泰州 學案〉黃宗羲摘錄了楊起元和周汝登的學說，但管志道僅有一小段傳記。而在當代學界，周汝登在思想史上頗有「能見度」以外，管志道和楊起元的思想鮮少被注意，可說已長久成為哲學史或思想史的「失蹤者」。 《君師道合：晚明儒者的三教合一論述》主要的論題核心在於探索晚明的三教合一論述，探討「合一」觀背後的「思想世界」與「歷史脈絡」，找出合一思想的現實關懷，究竟和儒者所面對的時代和思想危機有什麼關聯，以此建 構晚明三教合一的論述場域。書中揭示中晚明三教合流思維的演變，以及儒者三教合一觀所包含的君道與師道的競爭關係。此外，追問三教合一論述又如何安頓政治權力與道德權威等問題。本書採取「論述」的概念，也是在前文 討論的反思基礎上，認為「三教合一」不僅只是一個思想概念，或者是一種思想整合的複雜形態，圍繞著三教合一的各種話語如「出世法」、「君師道」及「治教」等，是晚明儒者的共同關懷，彼此的討論和回應形成重要的論述 場域。 本書第一章為導論。首先提出本書的問題反思，同時檢視「三教合一」研究的多重視野，把握其研究脈絡，最後再從題目和人物選擇考量說明，進一步勾勒出本書主要問題意識。第二章為「明中葉三教合流之衍變」，主要提供三 教交涉的長時段演變背景，並且以王陽明作為主要分界點，探討其如何開拓包容性的三教觀，而後來學者在此思想基礎上，如何找到思想出路，以致跨出良知學話語，建立自己的思想關懷和立場。第三章探索管志道的「乾元統天 」之學。第四章以楊起元「孝弟慈」大成之學為討論主軸。第五章則論周汝登的「三教統體」之學。第六章為結論。從管志道、楊起元與周汝登三教合一論述的比較，總結其如何蘊含「政教化」傾向。.

本书内容主要包括:规范词“不得”的意义与历史流变、禁止性法律规范的历史起源、禁止性法律规范的逻辑地位、禁止性法律规范的内在结构、禁止性法律规范达成秩序的思维机制等。.

本书是裟罗馆清言和围炉夜话的合订本,主要内容有:裟罗馆清言上、下卷;续裟罗馆清言;附录;围炉夜话.

本书共六卷,内容包括:挑战主流;身份认同;性别暴力;警界审视;打破沉默;参透俗套.

A cross-cultural work which reinvigorates the consideration of enlightenment.