顾炎武“亡国”与“亡天下”本义考论——从梁启超“天下兴亡,匹夫有责”一语谈起

发布时间：2018-05-01 17:05

  本文选题：“天下兴亡 + 匹夫有责”　； 参考：《海南大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2017年01期

【摘要】：梁启超将顾炎武"亡国"与"亡天下"的论述概括为"天下兴亡,匹夫有责",但其含义已与顾氏原义有了很大差别。顾炎武的原义实质上是政治哲学问题,强调士大夫(知识分子)的理论关切的具体内容和处世行为的政治社会意义,由此反对士大夫对佛老、玄学、心学甚至理学的理论喜好和士大夫处世的自由言行。梁启超则将国家振兴之希望,寄托于士大夫之自我社会意识的觉醒和才能道德水平之提升,强调士大夫的社会担当职责。造成两者差异之原因在于梁启超的心学和现代启蒙思想背景,而顾炎武则基于中国传统经学的现实关切和理论品格。今天,思考两者的差异仍具有重要的理论与现实意义。
[Abstract]:Liang Qichao generalizes Gu Yanwu's exposition of "subjugation" and "subjugation of the world" as "rise and fall in the world, with equal responsibility", but its meaning is quite different from Gu's original meaning. Gu Yanwu's original meaning is essentially a matter of political philosophy, emphasizing the specific contents of the theoretical concerns of literati (intellectuals) and the political and social significance of his behavior in dealing with the world. The theoretical preference of psychology and even Neo-Confucianism and the free words and deeds of literati and officials in the world. Liang Qichao placed the hope of national rejuvenation on the awakening of self-social consciousness and the promotion of talent and morality of the literati and officials, and emphasized the social responsibility of the literati and bureaucrats. The reason for the difference lies in Liang Qichao's background of mind learning and modern enlightenment, while Gu Yanwu is based on the practical concern and theoretical character of Chinese traditional classics. Today, thinking about the difference between the two still has important theoretical and practical significance.
【作者单位】： 贵州大学哲学与社会发展学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金特别委托项目(14@ZH054) 2015年度贵州省教育厅人文社科基地项目(2015JD005)
【分类号】：D092
，

本文编号：1830283