再论中国古典学重建问题——以列子时代考订与《列子》八篇真伪之辨为例
发布时间：2018-11-03 20:51
【摘要】：自1935年5月冯友兰陆续阐发的"信古、疑古、释古"说,曾在中国学术界引发长期的争议,并直接影响到20世纪90年代以来中国古典学理论的建构。从中国学术史上有关列子时代考订和《列子》八篇的真伪之辨,可以清晰地看出,除了明清民国时期,存在极端疑古的不良倾向外,总体而论,从信中有疑到考而后疑与考而后信两种倾向并存,"信"与"疑"始终没有呈现出绝对的分离状态。简单地将"信"和"疑"对立起来,注定很难准确揭示出纷繁复杂的古史、古书的历史实际,自然也很难谈到在真实可信的史料基础上进行古典学重建问题。新时期学术界关于浙大简、清华简、北大简真伪的激烈论辩,为新时期中国古典学的重建问题提出一极有价值的启示:对古史古书的审查,是重建古典学的基础,不对新旧史料进行科学的"澄滤",曲解与割裂信古、疑古、释古之间的关系,必会将中国古典学重建引向新的误区。
[Abstract]:Since May 1935, Feng Youlan's theory of "believing in ancient times, doubting ancient times, explaining ancient times" has aroused a long controversy in Chinese academic circles, and has directly influenced the construction of Chinese classical theory since the 1990s. It is clear from the textual research in the history of Chinese academic studies on the period of the "Lenzi" and the identification of the authenticity of the eight articles that apart from the period of the Ming and the Republic of China, there was a tendency to be extremely suspicious of the ancient times, generally speaking, There are two tendencies from doubt in letter to doubt after examination and belief after examination, and there is no absolute separation between "trust" and "doubt". Simply putting "trust" and "doubt" against each other, it is doomed that it is difficult to reveal the complicated and complicated ancient history accurately. The historical reality of ancient books is also difficult to talk about the reconstruction of classical studies on the basis of authentic and credible historical data. The fierce debate in the academic circles of Zhejiang University, Qinghua Bamboo slips and Peking University on the truth and falsehood of the bamboo slips in the new era provides a valuable inspiration for the reconstruction of Chinese classical studies in the new era: the review of ancient books on ancient history is the basis for the reconstruction of classical studies. Without the scientific "clear filtering" of the new and the old historical materials, the relationship between the misinterpretation and the separation of the ancient times, the doubt of the ancient times, and the interpretation of the ancient times will lead to new misunderstandings in the reconstruction of Chinese classical science.
【作者单位】： 苏州大学社会学院;
【分类号】：K092
，
本文编号：2309011
[Abstract]:Since May 1935, Feng Youlan's theory of "believing in ancient times, doubting ancient times, explaining ancient times" has aroused a long controversy in Chinese academic circles, and has directly influenced the construction of Chinese classical theory since the 1990s. It is clear from the textual research in the history of Chinese academic studies on the period of the "Lenzi" and the identification of the authenticity of the eight articles that apart from the period of the Ming and the Republic of China, there was a tendency to be extremely suspicious of the ancient times, generally speaking, There are two tendencies from doubt in letter to doubt after examination and belief after examination, and there is no absolute separation between "trust" and "doubt". Simply putting "trust" and "doubt" against each other, it is doomed that it is difficult to reveal the complicated and complicated ancient history accurately. The historical reality of ancient books is also difficult to talk about the reconstruction of classical studies on the basis of authentic and credible historical data. The fierce debate in the academic circles of Zhejiang University, Qinghua Bamboo slips and Peking University on the truth and falsehood of the bamboo slips in the new era provides a valuable inspiration for the reconstruction of Chinese classical studies in the new era: the review of ancient books on ancient history is the basis for the reconstruction of classical studies. Without the scientific "clear filtering" of the new and the old historical materials, the relationship between the misinterpretation and the separation of the ancient times, the doubt of the ancient times, and the interpretation of the ancient times will lead to new misunderstandings in the reconstruction of Chinese classical science.
【作者单位】： 苏州大学社会学院;
【分类号】：K092
，
本文编号：2309011
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/sxll/2309011.html
