【作者】 卓立；

【导师】 胡逢祥；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 历史文献学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 十九世纪下半叶以来,随着“客观史学”信念的崩溃,历史相对主义成为一种重要的思潮。哲学上实在论的衰落加剧了这一进程,在今天,历史相对主义已经成为史学理论的主流话语。尽管许多历史学家并不接受历史相对主义,但长期以来其抗拒历史相对主义的理论武器只是古老的历史实在论,而当实在论没落之后,历史文献学缺乏一个新的哲学基础来奠定自己的知识合法性。本文从历史相对主义的哲学基础出发,试图将历史相对主义的思想还原到哲学层面。其中引言部分阐述了全文立论的中心和研究方法；正文五章,从历史相对主义的源头历史主义出发,分析了历史相对主义的理论基础和主要论点,最后提出实存命题,重构历史文献学的哲学基础。各章内容如下：第一章分析回顾了历史主义的源起和发展,提出历史主义具有“一致性一个体性一历史性”这一三元结构,并结合哲学史分析了从历史主义是如何发展出了历史相对主义。第二章考察了“精神科学”这一历史相对主义的思想来源,分析了它原本的问题语境,指出它实际上已经超越了传统哲学“质料分类原则”和“形式分类原则”的二元构架,指向了实存哲学。第三章试图为历史相对主义追溯一个统一的观念基础,指出历史相对主义的中心意旨并不是对客观性的否定,而是对历史知识确定性的否定。并且论述了历史实在论并不能成为历史知识的基础,相反,关于“过去本身”的观念构成了经验论历史相对主义的逻辑起点。第四章从分析“历史记述不可验证”的观念开始,结合对逻辑实证主义及其可证实原则的分析,论证了证实的根本依据并不是当下经验的直接确定性,而是文本之间的批判。从而提出了实存命题的理论,认为历史文献学的基础是建立在实存命题和事实系统的文本批判上。第五章回顾了“纯粹历史事实”的观念是如何崩溃的,分析了主观性与历史相对主义的关系。认为导致历史相对主义的并不是主观性,而是主观判断包含的任意性。本章结合实存命题重新论述了主体和客观性的概念,最后对主观判断进行分析,论证了“事实判断”与“价值判断”二分的本质,认为主观判断具备可控制的客观言说方式,从而历史话语在最基本的话语层面是可以达到“客观描述”的。更多还原

【Abstract】 From the latter half of the 19th century, with the breakdown of the belief of "objective historiography", historical relativism has become an important trend of thought. The decline of realism and rationalism in philosophy aggravated this course, and today historical relativism has come to be the mainstream discourse of historiography. Although it is impossible for most of the historians to accept relativism, the theoretical weapon which is used by the historians to resist historical relativism is only old historical realism, so after the downfall of realism it lacks a new fundamental for historical philology to establish its legality of knowledge.This paper proceeded from the philosophical foundation of historical relativism, tried to reduce the historical relativism to the level of philosophy. In the preface, author presented the significance of the selected title in academic study and the research methods; in the body of the work, author set off from the spring of historical relativism which named historicism, analyzed the theoretical foundation and the main points of historical relativism, and finally put forward the theory of existential-preposition to reconstruct the philosophical foundation of historiography. The main body of the work is divided into five chapters.In the first chapter, the author reviewed the origin and the development of historicism; hold that historicism had a ternary structure of "consistency-Individuality-historicity"; and in combination with the history of philosophy analyzed the process of how historicism developed to be historical relativism.In the second chapter, by the examining of "Geisteswissenschaften" which is the thought source of historical relativism, author analyzed the original context in this question, pointed out that it has actually risen above the kind of dualism construction of "classification principles on material" or "classification principles on form" and pointed to the philosophy of existential.The third chapter tried to find a unitive fundamental idea for historical relativism, pointed out that the central intention of historical relativism is the denial of certainty of historical knowledge rather than the denial of objectivity. In addition, author argued that historical realism can’t become the foundation of historical knowledge, oppositely the concept of "the past itself" composed the logical starting point of empirical historical relativism. The fourth chapter began from the analysis of the concept of "historical account can’t be verify", combined with the analysis of logical positivism and its verifiability principle, argued that the foundation of verifiability is the critical among texts rather than the immediate certainty of present experience. So author put forward the theory of existential-preposition, considered that the foundation of historical philology is based on the existential-preposition and the text critical of factual system.In the fifth chapter, author looked back on how the concept of "pure historical fact" fell down, analyzed the relationship between subjectivity and historical relativism, in which author thought that it’s not subjectivity but the arbitrariness concluded in subjective judgment leaded to historical relativism. Combining with the existential-preposition to redefine the notions of subject and objectivity, author analyzed the subjective judgment, demonstrated the nature of dichotomy between "fact judgment" and "value judgment", and finally suggested that the subjective judgment could be "objective description" at the most basic discourse level of historical discourse by controlling its way of expression.更多还原