顾炎武与清代学术之转向

发布时间：2018-11-26 20:14

【摘要】：本文对清初至乾嘉时期的学术走向进行了重新考察,试图表明明清之际的学术实际上一直存在着学术以"明道"这一本原性价值追求与以博文为形式的单纯"为学"之间的内在紧张。作者首先对明末清初学术之大势进行了概要性叙述,对梁启超关于顾炎武为"清学"开山之说提出了商榷意见,认为乾嘉"汉学"实不足以承续顾氏的学术精神,推顾氏为"清学"开山,也未足以推崇顾氏。文字训诂名物典制的考证之学,本质上是疏离于甚至逸出于"明道"的学术传统的,不仅未能上接顾氏学术的根本义旨,而且也为戴震学术的某种质变形式。而"宋学"的重新张扬与"今文学派"的重登舞台,在思想史的意义上,则表明学术以"明道"这一本原性价值取向在现实性上的重新挺立,所以将"汉宋之争"以及"今古文之争"仅视为"门户之争"并不恰当,是忽略了其思想史意义的。"宋学"与"今文学"的合流,既导致以考证为特征的"汉学"衰微,也使"明道"再次成为学术主题,并由此而转向于社会现实的激烈批判,中国学术正由此而进入于近代。
[Abstract]:This paper reexamines the academic trend from the beginning of the Qing Dynasty to the Qianjia period. This paper tries to show that there is an inherent tension between the original value pursuit of "Ming Dao" and the pure "learning" in the form of blog. First of all, the author gives a brief account of the academic trend in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, and puts forward some comments on Liang Qichao's theory that Gu Yanwu opened the mountain for the "Qing study", and thinks that the Han studies of the Qianjia Dynasty are not enough to carry on Gu's academic spirit. Push Gu for the "Qing School", nor is it enough to praise Gu. The study of textual research on the system of textual exegesis of famous objects is essentially from the academic tradition of "Ming Dao", which not only fails to follow the basic purpose of Gu's scholarship, but also is a kind of qualitative change form of Dai Zhen's study. In the sense of the history of thought, the re-publicity of "Song School" and the reappearance of "present School of Literature" show that the academic has reestablished itself in reality with the primitive value orientation of "Ming Dao". Therefore, it is not appropriate to regard "the contention of Han and Song dynasties" and "the dispute of Modern and Ancient Chinese prose" as "the contention of portal", which neglects the significance of its ideological history. " The combination of "Song School" and "present Literature" not only led to the decline of Sinology characterized by textual research, but also made "Ming Dao" an academic subject again, and thus turned to the fierce criticism of social reality, from which Chinese scholarship entered into modern times.
【作者单位】：浙江大学哲学系;
【分类号】：K249

【共引文献】