Dòng Nội dung
1
人格主义态度与现象学的开端问题——基于胡塞尔《观念》Ⅱ的研究 = Personalistic Attitude and the Beginning-problem of Phenomenology: A Study Based on Husserl’s Ideen Ⅱ. / CHEN Wei. // Journal of Nanjing University: Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences 2014, Vol. 51, No. 3. // 南京大学学报 : 哲学社会科学 2014, 第一卷
2014
tr. 107-113.

Husserl based his Peron-study on the contraposition of personalistic attitude and naturalistic attitude. The personalistic attitude differs from the naturalistic attitude in their understanding of the relationship between the subject and the world: while the former regards it as an intentional relationship,the latter,a real one. In the perspective of the theory of constitution,two kinds of Persons can be distinguished: the apperceptive Person who apprehends the self-perception and other-perception,and the Person as rational subject who has the history of self-development. From the perspective of phenomenological methodology,the personalistic attitude is a non-Cartesian approach to transcendental phenomenology; and,from the perspective of phenomenological idea about philosophy,it is an approach to the teleological process of rational self-illumination and personal self-reflection.
2
实践理性、公共理由与正义观念的辩护 = Practical Reason,Public Reasons and Justification for Justice / CHEN Xiao-sheng. // 南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学), Journal of Nanjing University No. 3, 2015
新疆维吾尔自治区乌鲁木齐市 : 语言文字工作委员会 , 2015.
129-141+159-160 pages.

Influenced by Kant’s concept of practical reason,both Rawls and Habermas try to develop,through social contract procedure or ideal speech situation,Kant’s categorical imperative procedure,which is regarded as the demand of the practical reason itself,so as to establish a normative framework for regulating the public use of reason. However,they have different opinions on how to set up this framework. Habermas believes that a normative consensus should be formed on the bases of the same public reasons and under the ideal debilitative conditions;whereas Rawls argues that,in the justification of justice,the original deliberation of a "monologue"kind does not necessarily prevent the expression of the impartial moral point of view.What the citizens have achieved as a consensus,with yet incongruous concerns,is actually their requirement for a kind of public justification of complete and unified practical reason,under the condition of reasonable pluralism.