中国古典学与中国哲学“接着讲”

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (2)

Download: PDF (572 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The modern construction of Chinese classical studies aiming at holistic knowledge about the ancient classical world is on the way, and the philology as the basis of its common methodology with Western classical studies should be consciously explored. From this we can not only see the continuity of modern Chinese scholarship in sense of knowledge, but also its cosmopolitan nature. Starting from the method of philology, this paper explores the significance of expanding the study of Chinese philosophical history. On the one hand, it activates the ideology heritage of Qiang-Jia sinology in the field of modern Chinese philosophical research, on the other hand, it helps to break through the traditional limitation of thinking about the relationship between exegesis and philosophical study, and establish a new channel from the discourse text to the analysis of the philosophical argumentation. The “further explanation” of Chinese philosophy, which starts from philology and combines with the knowledge of modern linguistics, will be followed by the introduction of comparative literary and discourse semantic structure analysis to generate new knowledge about the philosophical form of Chinese philosophy. This may mean that the future of Chinese philosophy research will lead the tide in a worldwide discussion of general philosophy from linguistics.

Key words： classical studies philology exegesis Qian-Jia sinology "further explanation"

Received: 01 August 2018

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	KUANG Zhao

Cite this article:

KUANG Zhao. Chinese Classical Studies and “Further Explanation” of Chinese Philosophy[J]. , 2018, 35(5): 5-13.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2018/V35/I5/5

[1] 裘锡圭. 出土文献与古典学重建[A].李学勤主编.出土文献(第四辑)[C].北京:中华书局,2013.1-18.
[2] 刘钊,陈家宁.论中国古典学的重建[J].厦门大学学报,2007,(1):5-13.
[3] 曹峰. 20世纪学科体制全球化背景下的中国古典学——兼论出土文献在古典学复兴中的作用[J].社会科学战线,2013,(8):129-138.
[4] 甘阳,刘小枫.专题:古典西学在中国(之一)[J].开放时代,2009,(1):4-30.
[5] 赵敦华. 古典学的诞生与解经学的现代传统[J].北京大学学报,2013,(2):18-27.
[6] 聂敏里. 古典学的新生:政治的想象,抑或历史的批判?[J].世界哲学,2017,(1):121-130.
[7] 索绪尔. 普通语言学教程[M].高名凯译.北京:商务印书馆,1999.18.
[8] 张谷铭. Philology与史语所:陈寅恪、傅斯年与中国的“东方学”[J].“中央研究院”历史语言研究所集刊,2016,(87.2):375-450.
[9] 陈寅恪. 陈垣《敦煌劫余录》序.金明馆丛稿二编[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1980.236.
[10] 唐作藩. 音韵学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1987.21,32-33.
[11] 朱汉民. 古典学知识与民族精神的双重建构[J].中山大学学报,2017,(5):135-140.
[12] 陈少明. 作为一个学科的“国学”[J].中山大学学报,2017,(5):144-146.
[13] 景海峰. 国学学科所面对的知识状况与体制困境[J].中山大学学报,2017,(5):141-143.
[14] 钱穆.国学概论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2008,弁言.1.
[15] 李承贵,王金凤.中国诠释学基本理论之探讨——20年来中国诠释学研究述评[J].现代哲学,2013,(5):87-96.
[16] 潘德荣. 文字·诠释·传统: 中国诠释传统的现代转化[M].上海: 上海译文出版社,2003.
[17] 景海峰. 中国哲学的诠释学境遇及其维度[J].天津社会科学,2001,(6):17-21.
[18] 潘德荣. “德行”与诠释[J].中国社会科学,2017,(6):23-41.
[19] 李巍. 从“讲哲学”看中国哲学——冯友兰的思想遗产[J].兰州大学学报,2018,(3):102-115.
[20] 徐复观. 中国思想史论集[M].上海:上海书店出版社,2005.
[21] 陈卫平. “抽象继承法”蕴含的问题:传统哲学何以具有当代价值[J].社会科学,2013,(5):111-116.
[22] 陈来. 从道德的“抽象的继承”转向“创造的继承”——兼论诠释学视野中的文化传承问题[J].文史哲,2017,(1):5-20.
[23] 娄毅. 训诂与义理:中国传统释义学的两难选择——戴震的释义理论及其所反映的问题[J].中国哲学史,2004,(1):97-103.
[24] 肖永明、戴书宏.训诂即义理:钱大昕在义理和义理之学上的权宜之计[J].中国哲学史,2017,(1):103-108.
[25] 戴震. 孟子字义疏证[M].北京:中华书局,2008.25.
[26] 徐复观. 中国人性论史[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2005.
[27] 郑吉雄. 论先秦思想史中的语言方法——义理与训诂一体性新议[J].文史哲,2018,(5):38-67.
[28] 陈少明. 由训诂通义理:以戴震、章太炎等人为线索论清代汉学的哲学方法[J].中国社会科学,2018,(7):41-58.
[29] Michel Foucault.The Government of Self and Others, Graham Burchell trans[M]. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 5. [30] 匡钊.“赵氏孤儿”的两个面相:“大复仇”与考古学[J].兰州大学学报,2018,(3):116-126.