“语言学转向”之后的汉语哲学建构——欧美汉学界对于先秦中国思想的不同解读  

The Construction of Chinese Philosophy after “the Linguistic Turn”——Different Interpretations of the Pre-Qin Chinese Thought in European and American Sinology

作　　者：韩振华[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京外国语大学中国语言文学学院,北京100089

出　　处：《华文文学》2014年第2期22-39,共18页Literatures in Chinese

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究项目"他乡有夫子:欧美的<孟子>译介与诠释研究"(批准号10YJC720013);国家社科基金后期资助项目"西方<孟子>研究与儒家伦理建构"(批准号:13FZX016)之阶段性成果

摘　　要：汉学家陈汉生基于"物质名词"假说建构出的汉语和汉语哲学认识,受到另一位汉学家罗哲海的深刻批评。论辩双方之间的分歧并非只是二者分别倾向于儒家和道家的表面差异,而是他们所分别依托的欧陆法兰克福学派批判理论与英美新实用主义之间的巨大分歧。双方的思想在各自的理论进路上都得到了充分的拓展和袒露,所以对此次论争的深入剖析,也有可能成为理解和评价欧陆汉学、英美汉学的深层次"抓手"。The construction of Chinese tanguage and philosophy based on Chad Hansen＇ s mass noun hypothesis is severely criticised by Heiner Roetz, another sinologist. The difference between the two sinologists goes beyond the different inclinations towards Confucianism and Taoism; it points to their different philosophical basis： European critical theory of Frankfurt School for one, and the Anglo-American New Pragmatism for the other. Their ideas are developed and elucidated in their separate theoretical directions, therefore, a thorough analysis of this debate may lead to a more profound understanding and evaluation of European and Anglo-American sinology.

关 键 词：陈汉生 罗哲海 分析哲学 新实用主义 批判理论 

分 类 号：I206[文学—中国文学]