也说“回到傅斯年”

发布时间：2018-04-23 01:10

本文选题：义理 + 考据　；参考：《北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2017年03期

【摘要】：自宋代以来,人们便将学术分为"义理"与"考据"两途。就理想状态而言,当然应当是义理与考据并重;但在实践中,大多数学者都是偏重一途,而且往往以自己的治学旨趣作为评价标准,从而发生尖锐的观点对立。就总体性的人文社会科学而言,"考据"与"义理"都是认识人类社会的重要途径,"义理"的功用或许更为强大。但具体到史学研究,虽然因学者个性和研究内容的差异,既可以偏重"考据",也可以偏重"义理",但"考据"无疑具有更加基础性的地位。也就是说,在史学研究中,"考据"不应当是与"义理"并列的两个途径,而应当成为所有史学研究者都必须具备的自觉意识。
[Abstract]:Since the Song Dynasty, people have divided academic research into two ways: "righteousness" and "textual research". As far as the ideal state is concerned, of course, both righteousness and textual research should be emphasized, but in practice, most scholars pay more attention to one way, and often regard their academic purport as the evaluation criterion, thus producing sharp opposition of views. As far as the overall humanities and social sciences are concerned, textual research and justice are both important ways to understand human society, and the function of "righteousness" may be more powerful. But when it comes to the study of history, although the differences of scholars' personality and research contents make it possible to emphasize both "textual research" and "justice", "textual research" undoubtedly has a more basic position. In other words, in the study of historiography, textual research should not be two ways of juxtaposing with "righteousness", but should be a conscious consciousness that all historical researchers must possess.
【作者单位】：北京行政学院《新视野》编辑部;
【分类号】：K092

【相似文献】