生命哲学视野下旅游研究与实践方向的探索

近年来,旅游业已然成为中国国民经济的战略性支柱产业,但以经济发展为主要目标的旅游研究却呈现出固化和乏味的态势。未来旅游研究应科学与哲学齐头并进,与生命哲学的结合,更是旅游研究顺应时代发展的应有之义。文章以生命哲学研究的主要内容梳理为切入点,探索旅游生命观的形成,以生命哲学视野下的旅游概念与本质为整个研究体系的逻辑起点,分析生命哲学视域下旅游发展的内在机理,从矛盾论、价值论的视角逐步探讨未来旅游的研究与实践方向。结合当今时代特征,发现生命哲学下的旅游本质应是体察风景、体验生活与体悟生命的统合。人与自然共同构建生命共同体,科学旅游发展观应转向“以生命为本”,未来旅游的最终目的是促进人的生命自由和全面发展,实现人与自然的生命延续。     

The Origin of “Chinese Philosophy”

Using the analysis of a single word to launch a conceptual review of (a problem in) cultural history, the Chinese term zhexue 哲學 (wisdom-learning, tetsugaku) is not simply a translation of the word “philosophy”; its inventor, Nishi Amane (1829–97), regarded it as the (Western) counterpart of Oriental learning (Tōyōgaku). The first explicit linkage of “philosophy” with “the East” was at The University of Tokyo, where it played an important role in the work of Katō Hiroyuki (1836–1913) and Inoue Tetsujirō (1855–1944). Inoue’s History of Oriental Philosophy, written under Katō’s inspiration, used Western philosophy to systematize ancient Chinese thought, and transformed “philosophy” (tetsugaku) from a learning of others, or Western learning, into an important component of the spiritual world of the East, and into a kind of universal knowledge. This was completely different from earlier lectures on “China philosophy” (shina tetsugaku) by Nakamura Masanao (1832–91) and Shimada Jūrei (1838–98) which still followed the Chinese underlying structure, and in the background, it had the intent of grasping the power to control East Asian discourse. In China, when young scholars like Wang Guowei (1877–1927) embraced philosophy, they already took its universality as a self-evident premise. This kind of alignment later evolved into a situation where it seemed entirely natural to use Western systems to interpret Chinese thought, and it also induced serious scholars to reflect. However, “Oriental philosophy” and “Chinese philosophy” provide East Asia and especially China with an opportunity to reevaluate its traditional culture. In this connection, “Chinese philosophy” includes: first, using philosophical concepts to re-provision ancient thought (the so-called history of Chinese philosophy); second, the occurrence of “philosophy” and “Chinese philosophy” and their evolution after their arrival in China; third, drawing on philosophy to enrich and develop China’s thinking. When seeking out “philosophy” in the veins and arteries of China’s history, the first and second aspects must be strictly distinguished. As to what the future may hold, the effect of the third aspect is most important.     

绅士化语境下的失所现象:概念溯源及研究综述

失所（displacement）现象历来受到国际学界的广泛关注。本文主要探讨因绅士化而造成的失所现象,并对西方理论体系和实证研究进行较全面的综述。因绅士化造成的失所可分为直接性失所和间接性失所。依据不同的形成原因,直接性失所分为物质性失所和经济性失所,而间接性失所包括排斥性失所和潜在性失所。在笛卡尔式空间观的主导下,西方主流失所研究历来偏重直接性失所,而忽视间接性失所。本文认为,间接性失所背后的列斐伏尔空间观应纳入到失所理论体系中,以更好地指导失所实证研究。本文指出,结合中国现实,对失所现象进行理论化与概念化,对于转型期中国可持续城市发展具有现实与深远的意义。     

论毛泽东农村包围城市战略的地理基础

中国革命是中国共产党及其领导下的人民和军队,在中国这块辽阔广袤的地理舞台上,演出的一幕打倒国内外反动派,解放和建立新中国为目标的胜利活剧。毛泽东明确指出:\"中国革命斗争的胜利,要靠中国同志了解中国的国情\"。又说:\"认清中国的国情,乃是认清一切革命问题的基本根据\"。     

旅游文化及其主流研究反思——基于旅游文化概念的分析

旅游文化研究呈现出趋冷状态,旅游文化学的学科化与科学化也渐行渐远。因此,有必要对目前旅游文化基础理论研究成果进行一番理性的反思,而旅游文化的概念研究无疑是旅游文化研究的出发点。旅游文化是一个不断发展的动态概念,在不同的时空条件下具有不同的内涵。中国旅游文化研究存在泛化的危险,基于旅游主体、旅游客体和旅游介体的三体碰撞说是旅游文化泛化说的典型代表。实际上,旅游文化是广泛存在于旅游活动中的,由专业人员挖掘或设计出来,满足旅游者特定需要的物质文化与精神文化产品。从这个角度认识旅游文化的概念,才能使旅游文化研究切合中国旅游业的实践,从而具有特定的研究对象和实在的研究体系。     

康有为的“大中国观”与革命派放弃“驱除鞑虏”口号

190 2年 ,康有为深情表白 :“以我之愚 ,窃爱大中国 ,爱一统 ,若其为印度焉 ,分为众小以待灭 ,此则我之愚 ,所不敢知不敢从也。”他以“大中国观”反对喧嚣一时的狭隘民族主义 ,导发了一场思想大论战。通过论战 ,革命派接受了“大中国观”,清算了“民族复仇”、“满汉分治”、“特法治满”等错误主张 ,放弃了有严重负作用的“驱除鞑虏”口号 ,形成了巩固中国统一、体现民族平等的“五族共和”方针     

服务业地理学的理论与人文地理学方法论革新探讨

长期以来,对服务业地理学的理论研究、特别是研究方法论的哲学探讨往往重视不够。文章探讨了服务业地理学研究的一般意义和特殊意义,在此基础上,对服务业地理学方法论进行了深入探讨。从而得到了人文地理学方法论研究的几点启示。研究结果表明:借助人地全息统一论与城市全息地域结构的研究成果,并从信息哲学的角度,对服务业空间规律的分布、服务业空间组合与形态、服务活动区位等进行研究,将是一个重要的研究思路和方向。     

以科学发展观为指导推动档案工作新发展

用科学发展观指导档案工作,应重新认识档案和档案工作,确立发展是第一要务的理念,不断增强对档案工作不断发展进步的适应能力、服务能力和创新能力,促进档案事业又好又快发展。     

Does the History of Medicine Begin where the History of Philosophy Ends? An Example of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Modern Era

Abstract

A popular saying attributed to Aristotle states that ‘medicine begins where philosophy ends’—but this principle does not seem entirely valid for the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, when medicine and philosophy were considered to be integral parts of the same branch of knowledge. For this reason, although today medicine and philosophy are clearly distinct disciplines, historians of ideas cannot study them entirely separately. Indeed, since the early modern era was a period of profound revision of knowledge, probably only a truly interdisciplinary investigation can identify the conceptual shifts and transfers capable of reinstating medicine in its fundamental role in the development of civilisation and modern thought, in particular as a model of a rational knowledge aimed at improving the social good through a fitting interpretation of experience. This article intends to offer arguments in support of such a historiographical approach, and to illustrate certain interesting methodological ideas that emerge from a study in which the history of philosophy and history of medicine cross-pollinate.     

‘Eadem,sed aliter’: Arthur Schopenhauer as a Critic of ‘Progress’

Summary

Scholars have tended to overlook the political import of the ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). This is perhaps unsurprising, since Schopenhauer himself was not a political philosopher and wrote relatively little about political matters. But Schopenhauer's near-silence on political topics should warrant our attention: why would a systematic philosopher, who made lasting contributions in metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics, devote so little attention to politics? Connecting his political thought with his philosophy of history, I argue that Schopenhauer can best be regarded as a critic of the idea of progress, especially ‘progress’ conceived of as national development or the growth of the state.