专精和考据:新考据学派的治学取向——兼与史观学派比较
发布时间：2018-12-10 21:10
【摘要】：20世纪上半叶,中国学术进入转型和发展时期,其中新考据学派占据当时学界的主流地位,贡献尤大。此派治学重视材料、注重考据,无征不信,主张"小题大做"及在博通的基础上做专精研究,提倡建设实证史学,反对空论和疏通。而史观学派则强调史观和理论,以理论统领史实,注重探寻历史规律,倡导史学为现实政治服务,反对做琐碎的考据。因新考据学派的治学取向、宗旨与史观学派有较大差异,以致二者对立明显、交集不多,并互有批评,前者批评后者不重史实的史学是无根之飘萍,后者批评前者的工作只是整理考订史料,无法贯通和解释历史。这其中的是非得失值得今日治史者深思。
[Abstract]:In the first half of the 20th century, Chinese academia entered a period of transition and development, in which neo-textual school occupied the mainstream position of academic circles at that time, and made a great contribution. This school attaches importance to materials, pays attention to textual research, does not believe it or not, advocates "making a fuss" and doing specialized research on the basis of general understanding, advocates the construction of empirical historiography, and opposes empty theory and dredging. The historical view school emphasizes the historical view and theory, dominates the historical facts with the theory, pays attention to the exploration of historical law, advocates the historiography to serve the realistic politics, and opposes the trivial textual research. Because of the academic orientation of the new textual school, there is a great difference between the aim and the school of historical view, so that the two are obviously opposite, there is not much overlap, and there is mutual criticism. The former criticizes the latter's historiography with no emphasis on historical facts, and the latter is rootless, and the latter is rootless. The latter criticism of the former's work is only collation of historical materials, unable to understand and explain history. The right and wrong among them is worth pondering over today's historians.
【作者单位】： 华中师范大学历史文化学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“新考据学派研究(1919-1949”(项目编号:12BZS055)
【分类号】：K092
本文编号：2371202
[Abstract]:In the first half of the 20th century, Chinese academia entered a period of transition and development, in which neo-textual school occupied the mainstream position of academic circles at that time, and made a great contribution. This school attaches importance to materials, pays attention to textual research, does not believe it or not, advocates "making a fuss" and doing specialized research on the basis of general understanding, advocates the construction of empirical historiography, and opposes empty theory and dredging. The historical view school emphasizes the historical view and theory, dominates the historical facts with the theory, pays attention to the exploration of historical law, advocates the historiography to serve the realistic politics, and opposes the trivial textual research. Because of the academic orientation of the new textual school, there is a great difference between the aim and the school of historical view, so that the two are obviously opposite, there is not much overlap, and there is mutual criticism. The former criticizes the latter's historiography with no emphasis on historical facts, and the latter is rootless, and the latter is rootless. The latter criticism of the former's work is only collation of historical materials, unable to understand and explain history. The right and wrong among them is worth pondering over today's historians.
【作者单位】： 华中师范大学历史文化学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“新考据学派研究(1919-1949”(项目编号:12BZS055)
【分类号】：K092
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前9条
1 罗思鼎;;论乾嘉考据学派及其影响[J];学术月刊;1964年05期
2 喻博文;;两则史料辨证[J];学术月刊;1981年05期
3 董恩强;;抗战时期新考据学派的学术转向[J];求索;2008年09期
4 房列曙;吴云峰;;论胡适与乾嘉考据学派[J];安徽史学;2007年06期
5 雷平;;从经学复兴到乾嘉考据学派的形成[J];湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2008年06期
6 张旭曙;思想史和社会史的沟通与整合──略谈艾尔曼“新文化史”研究的方法论意义[J];中国典籍与文化;2002年01期
7 阮炜;传统学术话语现代转型的再思考[J];深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版);1997年04期
8 李志军;传统何以走向现代——读《清代社会与实学》[J];西安联合大学学报;2001年01期
9 ;[J];;年期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 董恩强;新考据学派：学术与思想（1919—1949）[D];华中师范大学;2006年
，本文编号：2371202
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/sxll/2371202.html
