中国古代哲学批评史

出版时间：2009-10-1  出版社：新世界出版社  作者：何兆武,彭刚  页数：309  
Tag标签：无  

前言

　　Some years ago，I was asked by the publisher to prepare a bookfor Westem readers on the history of philosophy in China.Ever sinceaccepting this invitation.I have pondered how the work should bedone and in what foHn it should be presented.0n this topic therewere innumerable works and PaDers in circulation.And foreign works（including those by Chinese scholars）in this field are already morethan one might expect.So where should I begin my task and howshould I deal with it？　　Systematic theoretical thinking has existed in China for morethan twenty.five centuries，since Confucius，undoubtedly one of theearliest and most brilliant thinkers of world civilization. The late Prof.Feng Youlan summarized it into two periods：the period of the philosophers and that of the scholastics.I regard this division as oneof Prof.Feng’S keenest insights，though it was the same path taken by Westem intellectual history. The antiquity of the West was an epochof classical civilization.while in the Middle Ages all that was entitled leaming was scholastic study，and all thought was brought forth in theform of scholastic exegesis. This mediaeval feature was the same both in China and the west.The sole difierence lay merely in the fact that China was in need of a modem age. But when considering traditional thought，the classical age certainly played a more important role than the scholasticism of the middle ages. Hence it was more worthy of our concern.

内容概要

　　Philosophical ideas of different schools such as Confucian， Taoist， Legalist，Mohist， Nominalist， Military Strategist，Yin and Yang， and Agriculturist in periods prior to the Qin Dynasty （221-202 B.C.） are expounded and analyzed against their times in the book. Advantages and disadvantages of different theoretical constructs and their social and　historical functions are also investigated from a critical perspective. In addition， the book presents the authors personal views on the category of Chinese philosophy and the relations between traditional Chinese thoughts and modem sciences.

作者简介

　　He Zhaowu is Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at Tsinghua University，Beijing.His many publications include Essays in Critique of Historical Reason and Reflections on theHistory of Intellectual Intercourses Between China and the West.He is one ofthe CO-authors 0f A General Intellectual History of China and A History of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and MineDynasties（with Prof.HOU Wailu as the Editor-in-Chief）.He has also translated many western classics into Chinese.including the works 0f Kant.Pascal.Rousseau，Edmund Burke and Condorcet.　　Peng Gang iS Associate Professor in theDepartment of History at TsinghuaUniversity.Beijiag.He is the author of Spirit.Freedom and History：A Study ofthe Philosophy of History of Benedetto Croce and The Narrative Turn；RecentDevelopments in Contemporary Western Historical Theories.

书籍目录

IntroductionChapter One" Confucius and the Confucian SchoolChapter Two." Mo Zi and the Mohist SchoolChapter Three： The Mohist School and the Traditional Mode of ThinkingChapter Four： The Hundred Schools （1）Chapter Five： The Hundred Schools （2）Chapter Six： Xun ZiChapter Seven： The Taoist SchoolChapter Eight： The LegalistsEpilogue： The Traditional Mode of Thinking and Its Modernization

章节摘录

　　The“second test”of the Mohists.i.e."the senses of hearing and seeing ofthe common people"should be recognized as bringing some positive factors intotheir epistemological theory，because it afforded proper room for our experience，from which all our knowledge is derived。But when considered in synthesis withthe first and the third tests，its validity may appear to some extent less assured.Without doubt，all our knowledge comes from experience.But experience alonedoes not lead to knowledge.Experience provides only raw materials whichonly after a process of our mental manipulation can result in a definite form ofknowledge.Pure empiricism or knowledge through experience alone can neverbe tenable in any sense.Thus the second test of the Mohists had to resort to thefirst and the third tests for its availability and validity.The first test is whollya priori bv its very nature as shown above.The third test means that a truthshould be tested bv its political effects.Of course，the political effects are their"benefit to the country and the people."as the Mohists would claim.But whatexactly constitutes the“benefit to the country and the people”would dependafter all on how one would like to define or interpret it. Each person may havehis own view and his own interpretation.The Mohists have their own views onhappiness and on the value of human life，as stated in the foregoing paragraphs.Theirs is a peculiar kind of utilitarianism which can hardly be accepted by mostpeople.for it would benefit only those who share the same idea of happinessthat the Mohists did.If happiness be accepted as a common measure of thebenefit of any policy，then this idea of happiness should have to be common toall.But if every one has an idea of happiness in his own way，then purportingto use happiness as a common measure would come to nothing.Furthermore，ifone could be happy only with the provision that one must first have ones ideaof happiness converted and recast so as to match others，then it would rather bea matter of ideological remolding and reforming than a pursuit of happiness inthe ordinary sense.　　We find in the Mohist doctrine a strange mixture of empiricism，asceticism，utilitarianism and transcendentalism in a fashion grotesque and impracticable，which went so far as to even approach the opposite of itself.These inherentshortcomings helped to explain why the Mohist school was so ephemeral andshort-lived.Its utilitarianism was pushed to such extremes as to throw out allthings that would not bring fOnh immediate and direct utility（e.g.music）.A man under such circumstances，where utility is carried to such an extreme，would not be a human being but a mere instrument that could hardly enioyhappiness in any sense.An end may perhaps justify means，but means cannever justify an end.A theory like the Mohists professed，when extended farenough，would turn to its own opposite.A truth overstated or overdone may ruminto absurdity.The Mohist teaching and practice would tend toward negatingprecisely the ultimate end which they emphatically professed to serve.Beesand ants toiling and moiling their whole life are mere instruments.and they canhardly be said of having any intrinsic value in their lives.But human life oughtt0 be otherwise；it has its inalienable value.intrinsic in and proper to itself.Itis not and ought not to be a mere means whose value exists simply and entirelyin its utility to serve some end.Otherwise.where does the difference betweena human being and an ant or bee lie.in respect to their morality as well as totheir nobility？For humans，we ought to assign a human use，and not treat themsimply as tools.Consider the bees and the ants laboring year in and year out forthe benefit of their communitY，far more dedicated，concen~ated and earnestthan human beings.never a moment for their individual enjoyment——is this thehighest perfection of the Mohist ideal？ The Mohists.it appears.lacked a senseof any humanistic value which alone could constitute the core of human life.A human being is more than a means to some utilitarian end.He is an end inhimself and by himself.Man is an instrument only conditionally， by no meansan instrument alone.He has to labor in order to earn his living，but he is not amachine existing simply to earn that living.If he were only such then life would be worthless.In the last analysis.the highest state of lifc the Mohists preachedwould precisely reduce human beings to plain instruments.Such a utopia.oncerealized，would be a state in which all existed for one，while the one exists fornone，or rather a fascist regime in ancient dress.This is just where a demandof unconditional dedication would lead.Some persuasive talkers may say thatthe value of life exists in wholehearted consecration。Perhaps so. But this cannever be unconditional，that is a man cannot and should not consecrate everything of his.

编辑推荐

　　作者简介：He Zhaowu is Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at Tsinghua University， Beijing. His many publications include Essays in Critique of Historical Reason and Reflections on the History of Intellectual Intercourses Between China and the West. He is one of the co-authors of A General Intellectual History of China and A History of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties （with Prof. Hou Wailu as the Editor-in-Chief）. He has also translated many Western classics into Chinese，including the works of Kant， Pascal，Rousseau， Edmund Burke and Condorcet.