中国人文学术的近代转型——胡适、傅斯年和钱穆个案  

Changing China's Traditional Learning in Modern Time:Three Case Studies

作　　者：陈启云[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学国学院,北京100872

出　　处：《河北学刊》2010年第1期1-7,共7页Hebei Academic Journal

摘　　要：本文以胡适、傅斯年和钱穆为案例,指出鸦片战争和五四运动以来中国引进西方学术文化经历的特点,即对"救亡"(经世、救国、救民)关注的"现实功利"态度,压倒了对"知识、学术、真理"本身的关注。胡适的国学根底很好,但他对西方学术文化的理解很粗浅,却大力攻击传统中国文化而宣扬全盘西化;傅斯年大力推动"兰克史学",但他对兰克史学只是略知之无,他推动的其实只是清代考据学的新版;钱穆坚守中国传统学术方正博大的途径,会通文史哲学,对西学采取批判性、选择性的接受与会通,对西方文化与学术反而有异曲同工之效。钱穆很多关于学术的论说,常常比著名的重要西方学者的学说早出了二三十年。这是很值得国人反思的。Reviewing China＇sexperience during the past century of importing Western learning, the article argues that this attempt has been marned by an overly short -sighted utilitarianism without attaining a thorough understanding of the Western learning to be imported. The article examines the cases of three leading Chinese scholars of the 20th century ： Hu Shi, Fu Shinian, and Qian Mu. It reveals that Hu Shi advocated whole - sale importing of Western learing to China, with only shallow understanding of such Western culture and scholar- ship; Fu Shinian claimed that he was introducing Rank＇s historiography to China but seriously misunderstood Rank＇s scholarship; what Fu advocated was merely the＂evidential learning＇of the fallen Qing dynasty in a new dressing-up. Qian Mu, on the contrary, was honest in his pursuit of a modernized＂traditional Chinese learning＂ , combined with selective critical adoption of Western learning, with the results which sometimes excelled Western learning itself.

关 键 词：人文学术 近代化 中西比较 历史主义 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]