梁启超对福泽谕吉思想的解读和评价

发布时间：2018-04-30 18:38

本文选题：梁启超 + 福泽谕吉　；参考：《广东外语外贸大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：梁启超(1873~1929)是中国近代史著名的思想家、政治家、翻译家和小说家。1898年,梁启超因戊戌变法的失败亡命日本,以《清议报》和《新民丛报》为据点开始了其“自下而上”的启蒙运动。1898年正值日本著名启蒙思想家福泽谕吉所著的《福泽谕吉全集》(全五卷)刊行的时点,梁启超不仅高度评价了福泽谕吉的启蒙活动,而且以福泽谕吉为学习西方文明的窗口,大量学习、译介了福泽谕吉的启蒙著作。本论集中讨论了梁启超对福泽谕吉思想的译介与评价,并揭示了在中国近代化转型过程中梁启超面临的主要问题以及解决手段。具体而言本论主要围绕以下三个方面展开。在对梁启超的译介活动进行分析评价的研究中,研究者多以其译介的文学作品为对象、从文学或翻译学的角度进行展开的。诚然,梁启超的翻译中存在着大量的漏译、误译和意译。也正因如此,“梁启超式输入”一直处于众矢之的。但不可否认的是在梁启超的众多身份中其最有影响力的身份仍是启蒙思想家。本论首先以梁启超对福泽谕吉著作的译介为研究对象进行实证研究,在思想史语境中建构了起梁启超翻译活动与其政治理论、政治活动之间的对话桥梁。其次,在对梁启超与日本著名思想家福泽谕吉的比较研究中,研究者往往将目光置于二者启蒙思想间的单向受容关系,而忽略了两者之间本质性的区别。同时,在讨论梁启超对福泽谕吉思想的借鉴时,我们不能忽视梁启超所处的两个思想语境:中国清朝末年和日本明治后期。因此,本论的第二个目标是从梁启超对单个名词的译介方式出发,站在多元化文化的视角探讨梁启超和福泽谕吉文明观的异质性,并在此延长线上进一步展开对两者德智观的比较。再者,福泽谕吉既是积极倡导西方文明的启蒙思想家,同时又是主张日本加入西方欧美列强队伍、与中国、朝鲜断绝关系的侵略论主义论者。不同于近年来对福泽谕吉的侵华思想进行批判的研究主流,清朝末期的知识分子大都视福泽谕吉为明治维新的功臣,对其进行了高度评价。本文的主人公梁启超不仅大量译介了福泽的思想,更是在自己的论作中从多层面出发建构了作为启蒙思想家的福泽谕吉像。梁启超在历经了甲午中日战争后不仅没有批判福泽谕吉,还高度评价了他,在这一现象中又存在着怎样的历史原因呢?本论对此问题也展开了探讨。
[Abstract]:Liang Qichao is a famous thinker, politician, translator and novelist in modern Chinese history. In 1898, Liang Qichao died in Japan because of the failure of the Reform Movement of 1898. It began its "bottom-up" Enlightenment based on the Qing Dianbao and Xinmin Cong newspaper. 1898 coincided with the publication of the complete works of FukuzawaYukichi (full five volumes) by FukuzawaYukichi, a famous Japanese enlightenment thinker, in 1898. Liang Qichao not only spoke highly of FukuzawaYukichi's enlightenment activities, but also translated FukuzawaYukichi's enlightenment works with FukuzawaYukichi as a window for learning Western civilization. This paper focuses on Liang Qichao's translation and evaluation of FukuzawaYukichi's thoughts, and reveals the main problems and solutions that Liang Qichao faces in the process of China's modernization transformation. Specifically, this theory mainly revolves around the following three aspects. In the analysis and evaluation of Liang Qichao's translation activities, many researchers take his translated literary works as the object, from the point of view of literature or translation studies. It is true that there are a large number of missed, false and free translations in Liang Qichao's translation. Because of this, Liang Qichao-type input has always been the subject of public criticism. But it is undeniable that Liang Qichao's most influential status is still an enlightenment thinker. Taking Liang Qichao's translation and introduction of FukuzawaYukichi's works as the object of study, this thesis constructs a dialogue bridge between Liang Qichao's translation activities, his political theory and political activities in the context of the history of thought. Secondly, in the comparative study of Liang Qichao and the famous Japanese thinker FukuzawaYukichi, the researchers tend to focus on the one-way tolerance relationship between the two enlightenment thoughts, while ignoring the essential difference between the two. At the same time, when discussing Liang Qichao's reference to FukuzawaYukichi's thought, we can not ignore the two ideological contexts in which Liang Qichao lived: the late Qing Dynasty of China and the late Meiji period of Japan. Therefore, the second goal of this theory is to discuss the heterogeneity of the civilization view of Liang Qichao and FukuzawaYukichi from the perspective of pluralistic culture from Liang Qichao's way of translating and introducing individual nouns. And in this extension line to further expand the comparison of the two ideas of morality and wisdom. Moreover, FukuzawaYukichi is not only an enlightening thinker who actively advocated Western civilization, but also an aggressive theorist who advocates Japan to join the ranks of Western European and American powers, sever relations with China and Korea. Different from the mainstream research on FukuzawaYukichi's thoughts of invading China in recent years, most intellectuals in the late Qing Dynasty regarded FukuzawaYukichi as the meritorious officer of the Meiji Restoration. Liang Qichao, the protagonist of this paper, not only translated Fuzzer's thoughts, but also constructed the image of FukuzawaYukichi as an enlightenment thinker in his works. Liang Qichao not only did not criticize FukuzawaYukichi, but also spoke highly of him after the Sino-Japanese War. What kind of historical reasons did there exist in this phenomenon? This paper also discusses this problem.
【学位授予单位】：广东外语外贸大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B313.4;H36

【相似文献】