【作者】 石力波；

【导师】 张岂之；

【作者基本信息】 西北大学 ， 中国史， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 作为学通四部的史学大师,钱穆治朱子学的成绩斐然；作为20世纪新儒家史学方面的代表,钱穆治朱子学的观点及方法都别具一格。钱穆认为,在中国学术思想史上,只有朱子堪与孔子并提。他矗立中道,无论是尊朱还是攻朱,中国中古以后的学术思想都是围绕朱子学而展开。在钱穆看来,朱子对中国学术思想史主要有四大贡献,其最大贡献体现在对儒家新道统之组成上,第二大贡献是汇集并注释“四书”,第三大贡献是对经学地位之重新估定,第四大贡献是集孔子以下学术思想之大成。钱穆不仅看重朱子的综合会通精神,而且赞赏朱子的别出创新精神,认为宋明理学诸儒均是“别出儒”,而朱子正是“欲以综汇之功而完成其别出之大业者”。对于朱子学,除了在学术地位的评判上与众不同外,在理气论、心性论、学术精神等方面钱穆也提出了很多不同的观点。钱穆认为,在理气论上,朱子学是“理气一体浑成”而非“两体对立”；在心性论上,钱穆反对学界的理学与心学门户之分,并极大地提高了“心”在朱子学体系中的地位,认为历来“善言心者莫过于朱子”；在学术精神上,钱穆赋予朱子学以“乾道”品格,并认为这种学术品格是远承《易》的传统而来。在方法论层面上,钱穆治朱子学主要有三大特色：于会通处观朱子,以“一体两分、两体合一”的思维疏解朱子学,以史学立场解“理”言“心”说“性”,而这些方法体现的都是一种“以中治中”的思维。整体而言,钱穆在朱子学的研究上成绩卓著,这些成绩无论是对于朱子学,还是对整个中国学术思想史研究的意义和影响都是深远的。当然,钱穆的以朱子学为代表的理学研究也存在着理论上的困境,主要体现视野上民族性与人类性的冲突、范畴上会通性与差异性的矛盾等方面。钱穆的朱子学研究也彰显了钱穆本人的学术特质,这主要体现在：融会古今中西的自然主义的天道观,沟通理智与情感的客观经验论,以史证心、以心显道——“唯道论”的学术本质,“一天人、合内外”的一体化思维和四部之学的融通——义理、考据、辞章相得益彰的学术样态等这五个方面。本文得出的最后结论是：从朱熹到钱穆——学脉的传承与范式的转换。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a history master of ancient Chinese four classics, Ch’ien Mu gained brilliant achievements in the research of Chu Hsi’s theory; also he was a symbol of the New Confucianism history in the20th centory, who had his own special style of views and methods in studying Chu Hsi’s theory.Ch’ien Mu thought that only Chu Hsi could compare with Confucius in history of Chinese academic. Whatever supporting or accusing Chu Hsi, Ch’ien Mu standing in the middle. All the academic thoughts after the mid-ancient progressed around Chu Hsi’s theory.In Ch’ien Mu’s opinion, there were four great contributions to the Chinese academic thoughts made by Chu Hsi. To begin with, Chu Hsi formatted the new Confucian orthodoxy. Then, he collected and annotated the "SiShu". Furthermore, he revaluated the status of the traditional Confucian classics. Finally, he assembled the theories of the masters after Confucius.Ch’ien Mu not only paid much attention to Chu Hsi’s spirit of synthesize and master the classics, but also admired his creative character. Chu Hsi is the one who wanted to build the great academic through his comprehension.Ch’ien Mu brought forward his so many different views for Chu Hsi’s theory in the "LiQi" theory, the "mind-nature" theory and the spirit of academic, while his judgment of status of Chu Hsi’s theory were so different from others. Ch’ien Mu considered it was not "Two body confrontation"but"Daniel and integration" in the "LiQi" theory. He objected the differentiation made by the academic circle in the "mind-nature" theory and promoted the status of the "mind" in the Chu Hsi’s theory, at the same time, he held that Chu Hsi was the best talker about "mind". Meanwhile Ch’ien Mu endowed the character of "Qian way" in the Chu Hsi’s academic spirit, he deemed it succeed to the tradition of "book of changes".There were three major features in methodology when Ch’ien Mu researched on Chu Hsi’s theory. First and foremost, he discussed Chu Hsi with the opinion of synthesize and master the classics. Besides, he annotated Chu Hsi’s theory by the way "A whole is divided into two aspects, two aspects of a whole". Last but not least, he explained the concepts of "Science","heart","nature"based on the history. Above can give expression a thought of "Study on Chinese learning in Chinese way"It is an overall that in the research of Chu Hsi’s theory Ch’ien Mu acquired Outstanding achievements, which has far reaching influences not to Chu Hsi’s theory but to history of Chinese academic. Of cause, Ch’ien Mu also had theory difficulties in studying on Neo-Confucianism, which mainly contain the conflicts between the Ethnicity and the Human nature from the academic perspective, and the contradiction between the universality and the otherness from the category.Ch’ien Mu’s research on Chu Hsi’s theory takes on five academic characters. To start with is the natural law by fusing the naturalism of west and east, ancient and modern. Next is the empiricism which integrates reason and affection. In addition are the academic characters which not only showing his own by history study but indicating the nature with his mind. Fourth, he had the international thought of "theory that man is an integral part of nature^Internal and external integration". Finally he unifies the ancient Chinese four classics, including the argumentation, textual research, poetry and prose.These test arrivals at a conclusion that they were an academic inheritance and a transformation of the normal form from Chu Hsi to Ch’ien Mu.更多还原