您的位置: 专家智库 > >

中国人民大学科学研究基金(07XNB020)

作品数:2 被引量:18H指数:2
相关作者:宋洪兵更多>>
相关机构:中国人民大学更多>>
发文基金:中国人民大学科学研究基金更多>>
相关领域:哲学宗教历史地理更多>>

文献类型

  • 2篇中文期刊文章

领域

  • 2篇哲学宗教
  • 1篇历史地理

主题

  • 1篇学术史
  • 1篇中国现代学术
  • 1篇中国现代学术...
  • 1篇儒家
  • 1篇慎到
  • 1篇史观
  • 1篇视阈
  • 1篇子曰
  • 1篇现代学术
  • 1篇现代学术史
  • 1篇历史观
  • 1篇公案
  • 1篇韩非子
  • 1篇法家
  • 1篇复古
  • 1篇辩证

机构

  • 2篇中国人民大学

作者

  • 2篇宋洪兵

传媒

  • 1篇社会科学战线
  • 1篇哲学研究

年份

  • 2篇2008
2 条 记 录,以下是 1-2
排序方式:
“应时”与“复古”之间——共识视阈中的儒法历史观初探被引量:12
2008年
在共识视阈中,儒法之间在历史认知层面存在观念共识,既强调人类历史是不断变化的而在具体政策措施层面主张"应时",同时又将基本政治价值的追求托诸"先王之道"从而凸显"复古"色彩。"应时"与"复古"构建了基本政治价值与现实政策措施互相涵摄的政治理论架构。儒法历史观念的分水岭,不在于"复古"与"应时"之别,在于各自政治立场、政治信仰以及问题意识层面存在的差异,在于主观情感层面的"不愿意"而非认知层面的"不知道"。
宋洪兵
关键词:儒家法家复古
中国现代学术史上的一桩公案——《韩非子·难势》篇“应慎子曰”辩证被引量:6
2008年
There is a debate on the usage of historical materials of "what the first person answers for Shenzi" which is in the chapter Nanshi of Hanfeizi,to demonstrate the thought of Hanfeizi in the modern academic history.At first,Mr.Liang Qichao made use of the content of "what the first person answers for Shenzi" to study Hanfeizi’s thought,and considered "what the second person objects the first person" as the part of "what the first person answers for Shenzi".In fact,"what the first person answers for Shenzi" and "what the second person objects the first person" are two persons’opinions.According to Mr.Liang,"what the second person objects the first person" does not exist absolutely.He hold that Hanfeizi’s thought of "rule of law" is a kind of anti-despotism,and that Shenzi’s thought of "rule of power" is a kind of despotism.However,some famous scholars,such as Mr.Chen Qitian、Mr.Xiao Gongquan and Mr.Guo Moruo,pointed out that Mr.Liang did not understand exactly the structure of the chapter of Nanshi.Mr.Xiao Gongquan and Mr.Guo Moruo hold that Hanfeizi’s thought about law is "rule by law" which is actually a kind of despotism,not "rule of law".From then on,many scholars think Mr.Liang is wrong.However,this special debating phenomenon has not been noticed by our academic circles.Not just Mr.Liang did wrong on the usage of the chapter Nanshi,There are still many people,such as Mr.Xie Wuliang,Mr.Chen Hanqin,etc,putting their foots in it.So the question is who is right? This is the question this paper tries to answer.
宋洪兵
关键词:中国现代学术史韩非子辩证公案慎到
共1页<1>
聚类工具0