孔子与20世纪三大社会思潮

【作者】 王锟；

【导师】 刘宝才；

【作者基本信息】 西北大学 ， 专门史， 2002， 博士

【摘要】 从甲午到五四，是中国现代思想史上传统的儒家意识形态向现代性的“转型时代”。在此期间，大一统封建皇权解体所带来的政治——社会——道德的“三重危机”，中国的现代知识分子，在传统和现代化对照的框架背景里，以孔子传统为坐标，形成反孔的激进主义和拥孔的保守主义对立的两极；由于他们对现代性的理解、及达到现代化的手段和途径的不同，现代知识分子分裂成自由主义、马克思主义和文化保守主义三大阵营，最终导致对孔子的不同态度。 不用说，文化保守主义拥护孔子，肯定孔子的人文主义和道德价值。自由主义和马克思主义属于激进主义，在20世纪思想史上，他们对孔子的态度表面上是批判和否定的。差异之处在于，经过“五四”激烈的整体性的反孔之后，自由主义渐渐消退了政治性和激进化的色彩，50、60年代后港台一些自由主义甚至开始欣赏孔子传统。相反，马克思主义在50年代后，对孔子展开不断地批判和肃清，这种局面直到1980年代才有所缓和。然而，在激进主义反孔的深层，我们发现自由主义和马克思主义都有意识无意识地接受孔子的内圣外王思维和仁学价值，并以孔子“仁”的自由独立、平等性、民主性来反对“礼”之束缚、等级和压制，将人们从礼教和家庭的束缚中解放出来，实现个性独立、然后投身社会，奉献自己的才能，以建立一个富强独立的国家和公正、合理的新社会，并实现人生之意义和价值，这是20世纪它们的“内圣外王”。所以，它们的批孔往往是以孔子“内圣外王”的思维反对孔子，骨子里是赞成孔子的人文价值的。总之，无论是自由主义、马克思主义、还是文化保守主义，都不反对孔子的人文主义传统。何况孔子的人文价值，在现代社会政治、道德、宗教和经济社会中仍有其价值和意义。一句话，剥落了陈腐礼法教条的孔子之道适应现代生活。 本文创新之处，是以20世纪思想史中的孔子为视角，让孔子与三大思潮在传统和现代的话语背景里进行平等地对谈和争论，反驳了学术界对20世纪孔子命运所持的“拥孔”和“反孔”的简单性看法，得出了保守主义和激进主义在本质都是以孔子的仁学反对礼法教条，肯定“内圣外王”的理想，进而最终肯定孔子的人文主义价值的结论。它们以孔子思维反对孔子，揭示他们对待孔子传统中遇到的“普遍性”和“特殊性”之困境。并从对孔子态度的表面性差异中，透视了中国的自由主义、马克思主义和文化保守主义各自特征和缺陷，比如唯科学主义、思想文化解决社会问题的途径、民族主义、工具理性、唯意志论、人文主义等等。更多还原

【Abstract】 The period from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 to the May 4* Movement sees a turning point of traditional Confucian ideology to its modernity. During this period, the breakup of feudal imperial system causes the appearance of triple crisis - political, social, and ethical crisis, and modern Chinese intellectuals are divider into two poles - radicalism that opposes Confucius and conservatism that supports it; different opinions on modernity, and the approaches to it break modern intellectuals up to three camps including liberalism, Marxism, and cultural conservatism, resulting in the existence of different attitudes towards Confucius.Cultural conservatism supports Confucius and approves his humanism and ethical value. Liberalism and Marxism belong to radicalism, and on the surface, they are both critical and negative towards Confucius. But there are some differences between them. After the May 4th Movement, political and radical colour in liberalism gradually fades away, and some Hong Kong and Taiwan liberalists even begin to appreciate Confucian tradition in . the 1950s and 1960s. On the contrary, restricted to political and ideological confine, Marxists’ critique of Confucius continually deepens, and finally results in the nationwide anti - Confucius movement during the "Cultural Revolution". However, both liberalism and Marxism consciously or unconsciously accept Confucius’ Neishengwaiwang thinking and his Ren theory. They oppose the shackles, hierarchy and suppression of "Li" by using the independence, equality and democracy of "Ren" , and they believe that people can be freed from the feudal ethic code by means of "Ren". Therefore, the essence of their anti - Confucius movement is to oppose Confucius with Confucian thinking, but in actuality, they all approve Confucius’ value. In a word, none of liberalism, Marxism, or cultural conservatism opposes Confucius’ humanism tradition. In other words, the essence of Confucius’ way fits in with the modern society.This paper, by means of the equal dialogue and argument between Confucius and the three ideological trends in both traditional and modern discourse background, refutes the simple opinion of supporting Confucius or opposing Confucius held by the 20th century academia. It comes to the conclusion that in essence, both conservatism and radicalism oppose feudal ethic code with Confucian Ren theory, and both of them approve Confucian humanism. Besides, this paper studies the characteristics and defects of liberalism, Marxism and cultural conservatism in China through analyzing the surface differences of their attitudes towards Confucius.更多还原