1940年代郭沫若与侯外庐墨学研究的异同及成因  

The Similarities and Differences between Guo Moruo and Hou Wailu’s Mohism Studies in 1940s and Their Causes

作　　者：徐国利[1] 陈晨 XU Guo-li;CHEN Chen(School of Humanities,Shanghai University of Finance and Economics,Shanghai 200433,China;School of Marxism,Shanghai University of Finance and Economics,Shanghai 200433,China)

机构地区：[1]上海财经大学人文学院,上海200433 [2]上海财经大学马克思主义学院,上海200433

出　　处：《河北学刊》2020年第6期61-67,共7页Hebei Academic Journal

基　　金：2012年度国家社会科学基金一般项目“多维视角下传统史学与中国现代新史学关系研究”(12BZS002);2018年度上海财经大学研究生创新计划项目科研创新基金“马克思主义史学五大家论中国科学与民主思想传统”(2018110360)。

摘　　要：郭沫若、侯外庐在1940年代运用马克思主义研究墨学,却分别以“天志”“尚贤”作为其核心思想进行诠释。郭沫若认为,墨子代表“王公大人”的立场,是反动、反人类和不科学的;侯外庐则认为,墨子代表觉醒的“国民人类”利益,侧重从知识论、人类观、民主观、天道观发掘其合理成分。两人都以马克思主义为指导,从社会史视角进行研究,结果却得出迥异结论,可谓“同途殊归”。究其原因,主要在于他们对马克思主义的具体理解和运用不同。Guo Moruo and Hou Wailu used Marxism to study Mohism in the 1940s,but took“Divine Wil”and“Respected Sages”as their core ideas to interpret.Guo Moruo thought that Mozi represented the position of“The Nobility”,was reactionary,anti-human and unscientific;Hou Wailu thought that Mozi represented the awakening of the interests of“National Human Beings”,and focused on exploring its rational elements from the perspectives of epistemology,human view,democratic view and tiandaoism.They studied Mohism under the guidance of marxism but came to different conclusions.The reasons mainly lied in their different understanding and application of marxism.

关 键 词：郭沫若 侯外庐 墨学 马克思主义 同途殊归 

分 类 号：K207[历史地理—历史学]