关于“以史为鉴”的对话

发布时间：2018-10-07 18:01

【摘要】："以史为鉴",中国传统对此深信不疑。可是,它的存在与价值一方面面临西方理性主义思想传统的有力挑战;另一方面作为一种"隐喻",也非全无问题,有必要加以逻辑与事实的论证。关于第一方面。黑格尔在其《历史哲学》中对历史经验的存在和价值表达了明确的否定态度,从他的话里可以揭示出三个问题:其一,历史经验给了我们的教训是,从来没有人从中得到任何教训;其二,即使有历史经验教训,人们也有拒绝的自由;其三,在古今变易中究竟有无相同或相通的经验教训。关于问题一的回答是:黑氏所说乃是悖论(paradox)。关于问题二的回答是:诚如黑格尔所言,对于历史教训之取舍,人们有自己的选择自由,可是对这一自由的选择结果,就不再有选择的自由了。而且,选择的历史前提条件也是不可以自由选择的。从拒绝接受历史教训而失败的例证,人们可以证明历史教训是存在而且起作用的。选择自由只不过是不自由中的自由而已。关于问题三的回答是:没有。为什么?因为历史的经验教训既然是在历史中产生的,那么它就必然离不开它所由以产生的历史条件,也就必然具有历史性。人类既然生存于历史长河中,那就只能满足于具有历史性的历史经验教训。不过,历史的"变"之中也有其"常",历史流程中的相对稳定性或"常"在不同层次上并不相同,总之,只要在某个层次上有关的历史条件仍然存在,相应的经验教训就是有效的。关于第二方面。可以提出两个问题。其一,以镜为鉴(就是镜),看到的是自己,而以史为鉴(镜),看到的却是它者,历史如何能够为镜?其二,"鉴"字源于"监"字,监的本义是人从器皿的静水中照见自己,而历史则是长江大河,江河流水如何可以为镜?关于问题一的回答是:我们通过作为中介的镜子里所见到的自己只是自己的影象,它并非真实的自己,而是自己的它者、反映了自己相貌本质的它者。自我的认识实际上是必须经过作为它者的中介的反映(reflexion)才能实现的。关于问题二的回答是:人们认识自己的需要是多方面的,不同的需要或意向决定不同中介的选择,例如,欲知自己的形象可选用镜子,如须知道肺部健康情况可选用X射线照相,欲知自己的历史处境与前程则须选用历史书等。因此,对于"以史为鉴"这种隐喻的意义的深入理解,实际上也是需要逻辑分析的。
[Abstract]:Chinese tradition deeply believes in "learning from history". However, its existence and value, on the one hand, face a powerful challenge from the tradition of Western rationalism; on the other hand, as a kind of "metaphor", it is not without problems, so it is necessary to demonstrate logic and facts. About the first aspect. In his philosophy of History, Hegel expresses a clear negative attitude towards the existence and value of historical experience, and reveals three problems from his words: first, the lesson of historical experience is that, No one has ever learned any lessons from them; second, people have the freedom to refuse, even if there are historical lessons; and third, whether there are identical or interlinked lessons in the course of change. The answer to question 1 is: Heath's saying is a paradox, (paradox). The answer to question 2 is that, as Hegel put it, people have their own freedom of choice when it comes to the lessons of history, but there is no more freedom to choose as a result of this freedom. Moreover, the historical premise of choice is not free to choose. From the failure to accept the lessons of history, one can prove that the lessons of history exist and work. Freedom of choice is nothing but freedom in the absence of liberty. The answer to question 3 is: no. Why? Since the historical experience and lessons are produced in the history, it must be inseparable from the historical conditions by which it is produced, and it must be historic. Since mankind lives in history, it can only be satisfied with historical experience and lessons. However, there is also a "constant" in the "change" of history. The relative stability or "Chang" in the process of history is not the same at different levels. In short, as long as the relevant historical conditions still exist at a certain level, The corresponding experience and lessons are effective. On the second aspect. Two questions can be asked. First, take the mirror as the mirror, see is oneself, and take the history as the mirror, but see the other. How can history be the mirror? Second, the word "Jian" originates from the word "supervision", the original meaning of supervision is that people see themselves in the still water of the vessels, while history is the Yangtze River. How can the river flow be a mirror?. The answer to question one is that what we see in the mirror as an intermediary is only our own image. It is not the real self, but the other who reflects the essence of our appearance. In fact, the realization of self-knowledge can only be achieved through the reflection of (reflexion) as the intermediary of the other. The answer to question 2 is that people recognize their needs in a variety of ways, and different needs or intentions determine the choice of different intermediaries, for example, if you want to know your image, you can choose a mirror. If you need to know the health of the lung, you can use X-ray photography, to know your historical situation and future, you have to use history books. Therefore, a deep understanding of the metaphorical meaning of "learning from history" actually requires logical analysis.
【作者单位】：北京师范大学历史学院;
【基金】：教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目“中外史学理论比较研究”(04JZD00027)
【分类号】：K0

【共引文献】