【作者】 王兴斌；

【导师】 王东；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本博士论文之目的，并非是要描述或诠释历史事实的本质，这实际上恰恰是我所放弃的任务；我更愿意在本论文中发展或明确一些概念，如“客观历史”等，并希望它们能够帮助我们以一种更富成效的方式来谈论历史事实。为此，本论文将坚持一首要信念，即存有一独立的历史实在，且接受如下关于历史之定义，即“历史”一词包含两层含义：(1)过去人类各种活动的全体，以及(2)我们现在用它们来构造的叙述或说明。在本论文中，前者被称为历史Ⅰ，后者为历史Ⅱ。本来，历史Ⅰ不能为任何思维或语言所捕捉，但通过区分作为描写性概念的“客观”及规范性概念的“客观”，本论文将日常用法中的历史Ⅰ抽象出一概念，即“客观历史”，并界定此概念与历史Ⅱ即历史文本之关系，即弗雷格所提出的意谓与意义之分别。由此，历史文本便只是指涉辨识客观历史的方式，无关乎真假，抑或是说，“真”或“假”不能作为历史文本的评判标准，且历史文本的价值关键在于其用法。在此，必须指出，客观历史与历史文本绝对是不同质的，但在历史学的研究实践之中，二者却往往是以“客观-文本历史”这样一个复合概念的面貌出现。当然，这一复合概念并非不可存在于历史学之中。事实上，本论文认为，至少从知识进步的角度上，知道a=b要比a=a更有价值，因为正如康德所说，我们不需要任何信息便可确认前者，而后者却不总是能够先验地建立起来。不过，本论文有理由对客观历史与历史文本二者严格区别，并在此基础之上，通过精读卡尔·贝克尔之经典文本《什么是历史事实》，构建一包含有客观史实(A)、观念史实(B)、非客观史实(A)与非观念史实(B)四范畴的结构模型：如上图所示，A∩B、A∩B、A∩B和A∩B即分别表示客观史实与观念史实之交集、观念史实与非客观史实之交集、客观史实与非观念史实之交集与非客观史实与非观念史实之交集。作为一元史学范畴，客观史实与观念史实之交集A∩B，在历史学之日常实践中，并无实现的可能。原因在于，客观史实与观念史实二者具有互补性，历史学家不可能同时取得对两者的准确把握，客观史实愈趋于精确，观念史实就愈处于不稳定状态之中，反之亦然。A∩B，即观念史实与非客观史实之交集，历史学家若浅尝辄止，极易将其逐出于历史学范域之外。但是，不容否认，此一范畴的确存在于历史学之日常实践之中，且对准确界定历史事实之性质效用卓著。具体言之，在历史学视野之内，此一范畴可从如下四层次入手加以考察：A∩B反映某种基本真实；A∩B掩盖和篡改某种基本真实；A∩B掩盖某种基本真实的不在场；以及A∩B与任何真实完全没有联系，纯粹是自身的拟像。至于A∩B和A∩B此二范畴，皆非历史学家在其日常实践中所可能遇到。但是，前者指称“沉默的客观史实”，尽管不能直接观察之，但其于真正意义上的完整历史画面而言，不可或缺；而后者可界定为海德格尔意义上的“无”，或可参照狄拉克关于正电子之表述以为一隐喻，理解此范畴。如果我们不考虑A∩B这一典型的形而上学范畴，则A∩B、A∩B及A∩B三者之关系便可于一个三角形中表现无遗。其中，三角形的三个顶点分别对应上述三范畴，则此三角形之三个顶点便可视为历史事实所可能处于的三种纯粹状态，即：某一历史事实，历史学家可以确认其属于A∩B、A∩B抑或A∩B。至于三角形内部，其无限多个点则对应着处于不纯粹状态下的那些历史事实——它们主要是所谓“复杂的历史事实”，比如说：“此历史事实的m片断属于A∩B，但n片断则属于A∩B。”一言以蔽之，由A∩B、A∩B及A∩B三者所构成的这一三角形即描画了历史学的日常实践所可能覆盖的全部区域。此外，为进一步深化我们关于历史事实这一概念的认识，本论文还将越出历史学的边界，通过考察历史类电脑游戏及公共历史话语，将“历史的否定”层面纳入研究视野，进而得出结论：历史与“历史的否定”可以相反的方式指涉同一个意谓。总之，本博士论文之写作，归根结底，只能是描述历史学的日常实践，而绝不干涉之。更多还原

【Abstract】 The object of the dissertation is not to describe or interpret the essence of the historical facts, in fact, which is the goal that I have given up, but to present and make clear some concepts such as the Objective History and so on, which enable us to discuss the historical facts in a way of productive results.Here, the dissertation is fully confident of the very primary belief of existence of objective reality of history and accepts the definition of History given by W. H. Walsh in his standard works, the Philosophy of History-Introduction, of which the whole activity of human in the past is named HistoryⅠ.By distinguishing between The Objectivity as the descriptive concept and The Objective as the normative concept, the dissertation will abstract the concept the Objective History from the usual sense of HistoryⅠand establishes the relation between Objective History and the historical text as HistoryⅡcorresponds with the difference of Bedeutung and Sinn by Friedrich L. Frege. Thereby, the historical text is only the way of recognizing the Objective History without reference to the true or the false because the standard of judging the value of the historical text should better be its application. Besides, it must be pointed out that the Objective History is absolutely different from the historical text but in the daily practice of historical studies, the both are always transforming into a compound concept the Objective-Textual History, of course, which is not a bad thing for history. In fact, the dissertation is inclined to think that a=b, at the aspect of accumulating knowledge at least, is of great worth than a=a, because we may say the latter without any information while the former is not always tenable transcendentally.However, the dissertation has reason to draw a line between the Objective History and the historical text. Moreover, on the premise of accepting Carl Becker’s views on historical facts and by intensively reading the classical text, What are Historical Facts, which has been comprehended simply until now, the dissertation will construct a model containing four categories: objective historical facts, ideal historical facts, non-objective historical facts and non-ideal historical facts:In the graph above, A is used to designate objective historical facts,B ideal historical facts, namely, the historical texts, A non-objectivehistorical facts, B non-ideal historical facts. So, A∩B indicates the intersection of the objective historical facts and the ideal historical facts,A∩B the intersection of the objective historical facts and the non-ideal historical facts, A∩B the intersection of the ideal historical facts and the non-objective historical facts, A∩B the intersection of the non-objective historical facts and the non-ideal historical facts.As a category of meta-history, A∩B has no meaning in the daily practice of historical study. In other words, the historians can not be certain of both objective historical facts and ideal ones simultaneously. The more exact objective historical facts are, the more inaccurate ideal historical facts are, and visa versa.Under no consideration, historians have all the inclination to drivingA∩B out of the scope of history. However, A∩B is of great significance to describing the nature of history because it indeed exists the practice ofhistorical study. Concretely speaking, the category can be comprehendedfrom four sub-hierarchies: A∩B reflects some basic reality; A∩B obscures or distorts some basic reality; A∩B covers the absence of somebasic reality; A∩B becomes self-simulacrum strictly without any relation to reality.With reference to A∩B and A∩B, historians can never deal with the both categories in their everyday study but the former denotes thesilent historical facts, which is not avoidable to reconstruct the authentic and perfect picture of the past, though it can not be observed directly while the latter may be regarded as Heidegger’s Nicht, and which can be comprehended by the metaphor of Dirac’s positron.Moreover, except A∩B, a triangle relation below consists of the other three categories A∩B, A∩B and A∩B, which makes separately one vertex standing for the historical facts of absolute condition. As forthe interior zone of the triangle, every point matches one specific historical fact of multiple attributions. For example, historians may say the m segment of the historical fact X falls into A∩B but the n segmentA∩B. In short, the triangular graph draws the whole area of the daily practice of history covering to the full extent.In order to deepening the concept of historical fact, the dissertation will cross the boundary of history and make s survey of negation of history by studying dialectically the computer games of history and the common discourse of history, which will lead us to a conclusion that history and its negation may refer to the same Bedeutung in a reverse manner.On the whole, the writing of the dissertation, to the root of the matter, can only describe the daily practice of historical studies without any interference.更多还原