傳統上我們所容許的殺人不外乎是：防衛殺人、戰爭和死刑。本文所要探討的是另外一種你我可能更有機會替自己或替他人決定是否要蓄意地結束一個人的生命－那就是，安樂死(euthanasia)。這種蓄意地殺人比傳統上已容許的類型更具爭議之處在於：我們相信殺死一位無辜的人在道德上總是不被容許，或是錯的。然而這樣原則，因醫療技術的進步而遭受挑戰，迫使我們不得不重新思考這原則的理性基礎何在。當患者處於無法減輕的極度痛苦中，這樣的患者如果要求醫師終止治療、撤除維生裝置、提供他致命的化合物或替他注射致命化合物以盡早結束自己的生命，醫師該如何做？在這情況下，遵照患者的要求而結束患者的生命是仁慈還是謀殺。

這篇論文的主要面在於探討巴代耶對於獻祭的闡釋。巴代耶以獻祭的觀點，繼續承接尼采對於「上帝之死」的闡述。再者，巴代耶在黑格爾人學的基礎上展開他對於「人」的批判﹔以及針對涂爾幹的集體決定論和神聖與世俗的二分法重新檢討，對神聖與世俗的二分法發生之前有更為根本的認識論。 巴代耶認為獻祭經驗所帶出的異質性在於：獻祭不包含任何功利性，獻祭是要將獻祭即是要將死亡與生命帶入和諧之境，給予死亡生命的湧現，給予生命瞬間性以及令人感到未知的死亡的昏眩。在此生命與死亡交融為一，但同時死亡又是生命的象徵，指向無限的道路。

本研究試圖從實際的例子觀察基督宗教的神聖感在組織中如何形成。以靈恩運動當中的神聖感現象為例，首先了解整體靈恩運動的發源以及區域的發展，再縮小到台灣的靈恩運動；本研究選擇由長老教會牧師組成的台灣教會更新協會，及其訓練單位頌泉內在醫治學校作為田野觀察對象。 一開始先由兩個層面了解內在醫治，首先是內在醫治的抽象概念以及發生的原則，它強調基本的認知符合基督教聖經教義，並相信靈界的存在，以及在靈界中有聖靈與邪靈的正邪力量存在。其次是內在醫治的身體實踐，它將人分成靈魂體三個部分因為靈會影響人的身心，因此身體的疾病和心理的困擾都和靈相關，其中聖靈帶來正面的影響，邪靈則帶來負面影響；所以內在醫治便以一些得到恩賜能力的信徒，本文稱為服事者，在儀式語言中驅逐邪靈或以及與其他靈之間不合宜的連結。 本研究一方面以韋伯的宗教社會學分析靈恩卡里斯瑪力量在宗教組織產生的身分分化，以及靈恩運動組織受到全球化以及本地化的影響；另一方面以現象學分析內在醫治的實際做法，藉由實際田野的觀察，將信徒在內在醫治當中的感知分成身體的感知以及意象的感知，並且引用Csordas對他者意識形成的分析，以及梅絡龐蒂對習慣形成的分析，解釋內在醫治當中信徒神聖感的形成，自我的神聖感與醫治的關係。 / This study tries to observe how the understanding of sacredness is formed in Charismatic Christian organizations. Therefore, this study starts the investigation from the development of Charismatic movement in North America and how it spread to Taiwan. To involve more and provide reliable observation, a charismatic organization Taiwan Church Renewal Ministry and its training partner organization Singing Waters Ministries thus are chosen as study cases. These two organizations stress on a specific Charismatic activity called inner healings. The investigation of inner healing can be divided to two dimensions, the understanding of the concepts and principles of inner healing which always stress its teaching that have matched Christian faith, and the body practice of inner healing. Human beings are divided into three parts—body, soul, and spirits in inner healing teachings. For that the spirits will affect bodies and souls of human beings, there could be both positive and negative influences. Holy spirits bring positive effects such as the feeling of heats and peace, while evil spirits bring negative effects such as illnesses and disturbance on emotions. There will be some gifted disciples designated “servers” are able to help the participants to chase away evil spirits or cut the inappropriate connection among human souls, “soul-ties.” Inner healing phenomenon could be analyzed through sociology of religion of Max Weber by charismatic domination and its influences on religious organizations. Besides, it could be set in a globalization context as well. On the other hand, it could be analyzed by phenomenological approaches. Through the approaches such as the sacred self and alterity theory of Csordas Thomas and the habitus theory of Merleau Ponty can not only explain how the understanding of sacredness is developed among the participants in inner healing activities but elaborate the relation between self secredness and healings.

從一九九０年以站在天際線的巫女自居，到二００八年持續以《巫言》上達天聽的朱天文，整整二十年的時間，朱天文的中心信念始終沒變。這樣的信念來自於一九七六年胡蘭成為朱天文寫的一篇文章〈來寫朱天文〉，他以神姬（巫女）之舞盛讚朱天文的文學之美，不僅讓朱天文從此埋下風吹花開的成巫種子，也讓她捨棄過去的張學，朝向與胡蘭成志同道合的文學志業邁進。 這樣的文學志業，從一九七五年《今生今世》的石破天驚，到一九七六年曇花暑夜的永恆講學，再到一九七七年以三三集刊向遠在日本的蘭師致敬，朱天文渴望透過文學穿越時空、表達相親之情的成巫旅程就已展開。然而這樣的成巫旅程，卻在一九八一年胡蘭成過世後產生巨大變化。朱天文一改過去的青春旑旎、向陽生發，反而以張愛玲的「沈鬱頓挫」，表達自己馱負老靈魂的繾綣滄桑；進一步在這樣的文學裡，將三三的黃金歲月，以更為深刻、善感的方式記錄下來。此舉不僅具象化胡蘭成的〈女人論〉，也讓朱天文在不知不覺間，以美好的感情、豐富的心境，以及大量的格物，叛逃張愛玲的獨自起舞。 朱天文曾表示，自己是以〈女人論〉的三部曲《世紀末的華麗》、《荒人手記》與《巫言》，紀念與胡蘭成相處過的那段歲月。本文即透過朱天文的啟蒙前身，挖掘〈柴師父〉蘊含的成巫動機；〈肉身菩薩〉蘊含的成巫途徑；〈世紀末的華麗〉蘊含的成巫內涵，進一步以《荒人手記》充滿詩情的四字箴言，總結朱天文跨越時空、超越生死、滿溢熱情的成巫旅程。 志同道合的深情高歌，到《巫言》成為平靜直捷的上達天聽。其方式即為削去敘事情節，以離題格物進行鋪排書寫，此方式早在〈世紀末的華麗〉就已展開，也揭露朱天文叛逃張愛玲的決心。而其內容則為大量的知識、家事、政事等細節，透過這些與胡相親的「起誓／士」內容，也讓朱天文得以向星空版圖上的君父們悠悠對話。本文即藉由朱天文的自白回憶，以及胡、張的文本互文，耙梳朱天文完整的成巫歷程；同時對照三部曲的精神內涵，不僅一窺君父們的真實身份，也揭露三部曲的文字祭典，就是讓朱天文邁入神聖空間的永恆關鍵。

「沙皇亞歷山大一世之研究」主要以歷史分析法(History Analysis Method)為主軸，針對俄國沙皇亞歷山大一世（Tsar Alexander Ⅰ）從出生(24 Dec 1777)一直到逝世(26 Dec 1825)的一生事蹟，包括了少年成長時期、執政時期(1801-1825年)的社會情況、內政外交、軍事行為等加以研究分析，以提出對此段歷史的分析解釋以及對其後歷史的影響。 由於凱薩琳大帝精心設計的教育歷程，使得亞歷山大一世成為俄國皇室中有史以來第一位具有啟蒙思想的沙皇並且懷有著改革俄國的夢想。然而亞歷山大一世經常在言行上出現不一致的狀況。舉例來說，少年時代的他曾不只一次地表明本身並不適於擔任沙皇，然而日後他卻在一場弒父的流血政變中登基﹔他宣稱自己熱愛憲政，但卻未能實踐他對憲政主義的理想；他一再地表示對農奴制度極端地憎惡，但卻沒有對這項制度有較為激烈的改革﹔他在外交上表示別無所求只願歐洲和平的想法，卻一再地與法國以及瑞典、顎圖曼土耳其帝國等發生戰爭。因此，為了解釋這種矛盾性，大部分的史家經常將亞歷山大一世描寫為一個謎題一般神秘而且矛盾的人物，或者將他描繪成詭計多端、不真誠的乃至於白癡與精神分裂，以提出對於亞歷山大一世如此矛盾不協調的統治的解釋。除了以這種方式來解釋亞歷山大一世的統治歷程外，本篇文章旨在更進一步地深入瞭解沙皇的性格與人格特質，以及將外在條件的制約納入分析思考的範圍中，以對此段歷史提出更為全面而廣泛地解釋。 終亞歷山大一生，他耗費了相當多的時間在國內改革與外交事務的參與上。1801年即位之始，他便汲汲營營地進行各項改革，然而由於國內改革事務存在的艱困阻礙加上拿破崙的壓力，逐漸促使他遠離內政改革而將心思轉向外交事務上。在提爾斯特條約暫時地解脫亞歷山大一世在外交與軍事上的壓力之後，亞歷山大一世又回到內政改革上，他任命了麥克海爾•史普蘭斯基為國務卿，並且命他進行憲政計劃的草擬。由於許多的原因，史普蘭斯基所提出的計劃沒能夠全盤被執行，而憲政改革又再次陷入了停擺。1812年，俄國面臨了拿破崙侵略的威脅，最終又捲入與法國的戰爭中。在拿破崙經歷了征俄戰爭以及最終受到聯軍的圍剿而徹底失敗之後，亞歷山大一世成為歐洲最有勢力的統治者，他的功績在此時達到最高峰，並且要將歐洲改造成新的局面，最終藉由神聖同盟的設立而完成他的志願。在回到國內之後，亞歷山大一世似乎已經準備好再次面對內政的改革。然而沙皇對於革命的畏懼更勝於他對改革的熱情，1820年代俄國國內的不安以及國外的革命騷亂終究使得他的改革劃下了句點。雖然亞歷山大一世未能完成他的改革理想，但無可置疑地，他仍是19世紀裡俄國與歐洲歷史上的重要角色。 本文第一章緒論針對研究動機與目的、研究途徑與架構、文獻分析與研究限制與問題提出說明。第二章係對亞歷山大一世之成長背景，主要探討十八世紀末俄國現況，凱薩琳二世及保羅一世對亞歷山大一世成長的影響。第三章則對亞歷山大一世的內政改革，包括農奴政策、憲政改革、以及其他經濟文教的改革加以研究論述。第四章論述亞歷山大一世的外交與軍事作為，包括俄法戰爭、維也納會議、歐洲協調、四國同盟與神聖同盟等問題。第五章針對亞歷山大一世晚期的作為提出綜合檢討與回顧。第六章為結論。 / The Study of Tsar Alexander I mainly explores the history of the whole life of the Russian Tsar Alexander I (1801-1825). This article basically use the historical analysis method to describe and analysis the history from Alexander I's birth (24 Dec 1777) until his death (26 Dec 1825), which covers his childhood, youth, and his behaviors after his ascended to the throne. And finally provides the explanation and analysis of the history about this period of time, and it’s influence for later history. Due to Catherine II’s delicated education, Alexander I was the first tsar who had the enlightened thoughts and had dreams to reform Russia. But his behaviors were usually contradictory to his words. More than once he professed he was unsuitable for the exercise of power, yet he ascended to the throne in a bloody coup which involved the murder of Paul I; He claimed to love constitutions, yet he failed to realize his ideal to implement the constitutional reform; He frequently expressed his abhorrence of serfdom, yet he did little to challenge this institution; He asserted that his only ambition is to promote the peace of the Europe, yet he fought not only with France, but also with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Historians usually explained the incongruities of his highly paradoxical reign by portraying Alexander as everything from scheming and insincere to idiotic to schizophrenic. In addition to this kind of explanation for his reign, This article aims at exploring the tsar’s personality and character more deeply and taking the outside constraints on his reign into consideration in order to analysis and explain the history of his lifetime more broadly. Through his lifetime, Alexander I spent most of his time in domestic reforms and diplomatic affairs. After his coronation, he eagerly engaged in domestic reform. However, the difficulties he faced in domestic reforms and the oppressions from Napoleon gradually pushed him to turn away to diplomatic affairs. Until the temporary relief of Tilsit treaty, he proceeded to domestic reforms again. He appointed Mikhail Speransky as the state secretary, and ordered him to draft the plan of constitution. Due to a lot of reasons Speransky’s plan was canceled and the constitution reform was delayed again. In 1812, Russia faced the aggression oeagerly engaged in domestic reform. However, the difficulties he faced in domestic reforms and the oppressions from Napoleon gradually pushed him to turn away to diplomatic affairs. Until the temporary relief of Tilsit treaty, he proceeded to domestic reforms again. He appointed Mikhail Speransky as the state secretary, and ordered him to draft the plan of constitution. Due to a lot of reasons Speransky’s plan was canceled and eagerly engaged in domestic reform. However, the difficulties he faced in domestic reforms and the oppressions from Napoleon gradually pusArakachev to start oppressive and cruel rule until his death. Despite of his failure to fufill all the reforms, generally speaking, he still is a dominant figure in both Russian and European history in the nineteenth century. The construction of this article is as follows：The first chapter focuses on the tropics about motives and intentions of this study, study methods and construction, the article analysis and the study limits. The second chapter explores the background of Alexander I’s growth, which about the tropics of current situations of the end of 18 century, and the influence of Catherine II and Paul I on the growth of Alexander I. The third chapter explores the tropics about the domestic reforms which include the serfs question, the constitutional reform, and other reforms about economy and education. The fourth chapter explores the diplomatic and military behaviors of Alexander I, which includes the tropics of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, the Vienna conference, the European settlement, the Quadruple Alliance and the Holly Alliance. The fifth chapter explores the last years of AlexanderⅠ’s rule, and provide the full analysis and overview. The sixth chapter is conclusion.