作者冯契，陈卫平缩编。冯契，中国著名哲学家。中国哲学界素有南北二冯之说，北为冯友兰，南即为冯契。1941年毕业于清华大学哲学系1941—1944年为清华大学研究院研究生，受教于金岳霖、冯友兰、汤用彤等著名哲学家。自1944年起，先后在云南大学、同济大学、上海纺织工学院、复旦大学任教。自1952年起，一直在华东师范大学任教，先后担任过华东师范大学政治教育系副主任和主任，哲学系、哲学研究所名誉主任、名誉所长，上海社会科学院哲学研究所副所长和副院长。国务院学位委员会第一届学科评议组成员，上海市上海科学联合会副主席、中国史学会副会长、上海市哲学学会会长。
译者分别为童世骏 (上海纽约大学校长，挪威卑尔根大学获博士学位)、徐汝庄（华东师大哲学系副教授，担任《华东师大学报》哲社版论文题目和摘要英译20年）、Paul J. D’Ambrosio(美国人，华东师大哲学系副教授）、Ady Van den Stock（美国人，比利时根特大学语言文化系博士后）。
目錄：
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 The Methodology for the Study of the History of Philosophy
1.2 Characteristics of Traditional Chinese Philosophy
1.3 The Struggles Between “Past and Present” and Between “China and the West” and the Revolution in Modern Chinese Philosophy
References
Part I The Pre-Qin Period （CA. 1046-256 BCE）
Chapter 2 The Rise of Confucianism，Mohism，Daoism，and Legalism
2.1 Confucius Doctrine of the Unity of Humanity and Knowledge
2.2 Mozi and the Conflict Between Confucianism and Mohism — The Antagonism Between Empiricism and Apriorism
2.3 The Laozi： “The Movement of Dao Consists in Reversion” — The Presentation of the Dialectical Principle of Negation
2.4 Sunzi Bingfa （Sunzi’s Art of War）and the Rise of the Legalists
References
Chapter 3 The High Tide of Contention Among the “Hundred Schools of Thought”
3.1 The Guanzi： The Confluence of Legalism and Doctrines of the Huang-Lao School
3.2 The Conflict Between Confucian and Legalist Schools and Mencius Doctrine of the Goodness of Human Nature
3.3 Zhuangzi： “Where All Things Are Equal， How Can One Be Long and Another Short ” — Relativism Against Dogmatism
3.4 The Logicians Debates on “Hardness and Whiteness” and on “Similarity and Difference” — A Conflict Between Relativism and Absolutism
3.5 Later Mohist Views on the Relationship Between Names and Actualities and on Nature
References
Chapter 4 The Summing Up Stage of Pre-Qin Philosophy
4.1 Xunzi’s Summation of the Debates over “Heaven and Humankind” and over “Names and Actualities” — The Union of Naive Materialism and Naive Dialectics
4.2 Han Fei： “Incompatible Things Cannot Coexist”
4.3 The Yi Zhuan： “The Interaction of Yin and Yang Constitutes the Dao” — The Establishment of the Naive Principle of the Unity of Opposites
4.4 The Development of the Doctrine of the Yin Yang and Five Agents — The Application of the Comparative Method of Dialectical Logic to the Sciences
References
Part I A Brief Summary
Part II From the Qin Han to the Qing Dynasty
Chapter 5 The Supremacy of Confucianism and Criticisms of Confucian
Theology
5.1 Dong Zhongshu and the Huainanzi — The Antagonism Between the Teleological and Mechanistic Doctrines of Huo Shi
5.2 Wang Chong’s Materialistic Doctrine of Mo Wei in Opposition to the Doctrine of Huo Shi
References
Chapter 6 Mysterious Learning and the Coexistence of Confucianism， Daoism， and Buddhism
6.1 Wang Bi’s Doctrine of “Valuing Non-being” and Pei Wei’s “On the Importance of Being”
6.2 Ji Kang’s Challenge to Fatalism
6.3 The Commentary on the Zhuangzi： “When There Is Being， There Is Non-being” — The Doctrine of “Self-transformation” Against Metaphysical Ontology
6.4 Ge Hong’s Daoist Philosophy and Seng Zhao’s Buddhism Expounded in Terms of Mysterious Learning
6.5 Fan Zhen’s Summing Up of the Debate over Body and Soul — The Application of the Materialist Principle of the Unity of Substance and Function
References
Chapter 7 A Tendency Towards the Confluence of Confucianism， Daoism， and Buddhism
7.1 The Buddhist Tiantai School’s Doctrines： “The Three Levels of Truth Are in Perfect Harmony with One Another” and “Even Inanimate Things Possess the Buddha Nature”
7.2 The Buddhist Dharma Character School’s Doctrine：“Everything Is Consciousness Only” and the Buddhist Huayan School’s Doctrine： The Universal Causation of the Realm of Dharmas — The Antithesis between Idealistic Empiricism and Rationalism
7.3 The Buddhist Zen （Chan） School — The Completion of Confucianized Buddhism
7.4 Li Quan’s Religious Daoism with a Voluntarist Orientation
7.5 Liu Zongyuan and Liu Yuxi： “Heaven and Human Beings Do Not Interfere with Each Other” and “Heaven and Human Beings Are Evenly Matched”： A Materialist Summary of the Debate Concerning “Effort and Fate”
References
Chapter 8 The Prevalence of Neo-Confucianism and the Criticisms
of Neo-Confucianism
8.1 Zhou Dunyi，Shao Yong，and the Cheng Brothers：Founders of Orthodox Neo-Confucianism
8.2 Zhang Zai’s Summing Up of the Debate over “Being and Non-being （Movement and Tranquility）” — An Exposition of the Principle of the Unity of Opposites in Terms of Qi Monism
8.3 Zhu Xi’s System of Principle Monism
8.4 The “Jing Gong New Learning” and the “Utilitarian Learning” as Opposed to the Chengs and Zhu Xi’s Doctrine of Principle
8.5 Wang Shouren’s System of Mind Monism
8.6 Li Zhi’s “Heretical” Thoughts
References
Chapter 9 The Summing Up Stage of Ancient Chinese Philosophy
9.1 Wang Fuzhi’s Summary of the Debate over “Principle and Vital Force （The Dao and Concrete Things）” and “Mind and Matter/Things （Knowledge and Action）” — A System of Qi Monism Unifying Naive Materialism and Naive Dialectics
9.2 The Enlightenment Thought and Historicist Methodology of Huang Zongxi
9.3 Gu Yanwu’s “Practical Learning of Cultivating Oneself and Governing Others”
9.4 Yan Yuan’s Discussion of “Practice” and Dai Zhen’s Discussion of “Knowledge”
References
Part II A Brief Summary
Part III Modern Period
Chapter 10 The Forerunners of Modern Chinese Philosophy
10.1 Gong Zizhen： “The Dominator of the Masses Is Called the ‘Self’” — The Beginning of Modern Humanism
10.2 Wei Yuan： “Basing My Ideas on Things” and “Knowing Something after Being Involved in Something” — The Beginning of the Debate over the Relation Between Mind and Matter/Things （Knowledge and Action） in Modern Times
References
Chapter 11 The Stage of Evolutionism in the Philosophical Revolution
11.1 Kang Youwei： An Advocate of Historical Evolutionism
11.2 Tan Sitong： The “Study of Humanity” Aimed at Breaking the Chains of Bondage
11.3 Yan Fu’s “Doctrine of Natural Evolution” and Empiricism
11.4 Liang Qichao on the Freedom of the “Self” and the Evolution of the “Group”
11.5 Zhang Taiyan： “Competition Produces Intelligence and Revolution Develops People’s Knowledge” — A Rudimentary Version of the Viewpoint of Social Practice
11.6 Wang Guowei： The Believability Versus the Lovability of Philosophical Theories
11.7 Sun Yat Sen’s Evolutionism and His Doctrine of the Relation Between Knowledge and Action
References
Chapter 12 The Philosophical Revolution Enters the Stage of Materialist Dialectics
12.1 Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu： From Evolutionism to Historical Materialism
12.2 Hu Shi’s “Experimentalism” and Liang Shuming’s Intuitionism
12.3 The Debate over Science Versus Metaphysics and Qu Qiubai’s Historical Determinism
12.4 Lu Xun on National Characteristics and His Aesthetic Ideas
References
Chapter 13 The Sinicization of Marxism and the Contributions Made by Professional Philosophers
13.1 Li Da and Ai Siqi： First Attempts to Sinicize Marxist Philosophy
13.2 Xiong Shili： New Doctrine of Consciousness Only
13.3 Zhu Guangqian： An Aesthetic Theory of Expression
13.4 Jin Yuelin： “Applying What Is Attained from Experience to Experience — Realism Based Unity of Perceptual and Rational Knowledge，and of Facts and Principles”
13.5 Feng Youlan： “The New Rational Philosophy”
13.6 Marxists Critical Investigations on Traditional Thought
13.7 Mao Zedong：The Dynamic and Revolutionary Theory of Knowledge as the Reflection of Reality — A Summation of the Debate over the Relation Between “Mind and Matter/Things” in the Philosophy of History and Epistemology
References
Part III A Brief Summary
Postscript
Glossary of Chinese Characters
Index
內容試閱：
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 The Methodology for the Study of the History of Philosophy
To investigate the history of Chinese philosophy scientifically， and to understand the historical experiences of the Chinese people in theoretical thinking， one must adopt a scientific methodology. In this introduction I will offer my thoughts on the methodology for the study of the history of philosophy.
（1） Understanding the Grounds for the Historical Development of Philosophy
Philosophy is a way of understanding the world through theoretical thinking， but what are the grounds for its development? This is a question that must be addressed in the course of developing a methodology for research in the history of philosophy， and we may investigate it in light of the mutual ties between the universal and the particular.
As far as the general grounds of theoretical thinking is concerned， philosophy， like science and other intellectual investigations， stems from and is conditioned by social practice； however， the conditioning role of social practice is often carried out through some intermediate links. In the case of philosophy， there are two such links. The first is the struggle in political and ethical thought which reflects the economic relationships of a given age. The second is the development of natural science and the corresponding struggle of science against superstition， both of which reflect the productive forces available to a given society. These links are the two legs which support philosophy and carry it forward. They stand on the same ground and are unified in social practice. We inquire into the grounds of the historical development of Chinese philosophy on the basis of this understanding.
The major struggles in the political thought of each period in Chinese social history have had an enormous influence on the development of philosophy， but it is also necessary to make concrete analyses. Generally speaking， in the pre-Qin period and modern times， both being characterized by great social changes， struggles in political thought are a major driving force in the development of philosophy. The pre-Qin debates over “past and present” （古今 gu jin） and “rites and law”（礼法 li fa） which reflected a controversy over the political status of the landlord class， and the modern debates over “past and present” and “China and the West” （中西 zhong xi） which reflected the opposition of the masses to feudalism and imperialism， profoundly and strikingly influenced the development of philosophy in the two respective eras. At the same time， the philosophical revolutions of these periods also guided political change. Of course， we must not overlook the connection between scientific developments and philosophy in the two periods. For example， the naive materialism of Mozi and Xunzi was closely tied to ancient natural science， and the modern philosophy of evolutionism was based on modern Western science.
Conditions for the development of philosophy from the Qin and Han Dynasties down to the Opium War were somewhat different from those in the times of change as the pre-Qin period and modern times. The period from the Qin Dynasty to the Opium War was one of relatively stable development in feudal society， and philosophical debates unfolded mainly within the landlord class. Debates such as those concerning “righteousness and profit” （义利 yi li） and “Heavenly principles and human desires” （理欲 li yu） were one ground for philosophical development in that period， but the primary force pushing philosophy forward was the advancement in the natural sciences that accompanied the growth of material production. Philosophical progress depended still more on the struggle of science against superstition. For example， the fact that materialist philosophy from Wang Chong to Wang Fuzhi always took the form of Qimonism （气一元论 qi yi yuan lun） was connected to the fact that contemporary sciences such as agronomy， astronomy， calendrical science， and medicine， all took the basic view that qi is divided into yin and yang， and that yin and yang interact with each other. Prominent philosophers of this period， such as Wang Chong， Fan Zhen， Liu Zongyuan， Zhang Zai， Wang Fuzhi， Huang Zongxi， and Dai Zhen， were all closely involved with science.
Now let us examine the distinctive features of philosophy. Philosophy differs from other forms of intellectual investigations in that it takes the relationship between thinking and being as its fundamental question. The different manifestations of this question through the different stages of the history of Chinese philosophy must be carefully examined. In the pre-Qin period， for example， the question appeared in the debates over tian ren （天人 Heaven and humankind） and ming shi （名实 names and actualities）， and in the Western and Eastern Han dynasties over huo shi （或使 someone or something causes things） and mo wei （莫为 no one or nothing makes things）， and over xing shen （形神 bodily form and spirit）. During the Song and Ming dynasties， after a complicated process of development， the problem found expression in the debates over li （理 principle） and qi （气 vital force）， or Dao （道 Way） and qi （器 visible things）， and over xin （心 mind） and wu （物 matter/things）. In order to understand the relationship between thinking and being， it is necessary to understand the material universe， the subjective mind， and concepts （categories， laws）. These are respectively called qi， xin， and li （or Dao） in Chinese philosophical terminology. The disputes at every stage of Chinese philosophy over the basic question of thinking and being can be understood as controversies concerning the relationships among matter， mind， and principle （wu， xin， and li）. Therefore， ancient Chinese philosophy eventually divided into three distinct schools： Qimonism， a materialistic theory holding that matter is primary； mindmonism， a subjective idealistic theory holding that the subjective mind is primary； and principlemonism， an objective idealistic theory holding that concepts are primary.
Taken dialectically， the identity of thinking and being requires certain necessary links in the cognitive process， such as the perceptual and the rational， the absolute and the relative， the objective lawfulness and subjective agency. These links also constitute contradictions， and under certain conditions the subjects of important philosophical controversies. Moreover， when philosophers enter into such controversies， they all seek to employ logical categories as instruments to justify their own doctrines or refute those of others. This leads to further controversies concerning logical methods and categories. There were， for example， the debates over “hardness and whiteness” （坚白 jian bai） and over “similarities and differences”（同异 tong yi） in the pre-Qin period， and the investigation into the logical categories of lei （类 class）， gu （故 cause/reason）， and li （理 principle） throughout ancient Chinese philosophy. These show that the fundamental problem of philosophy not only has different manifestations in different periods of history， but is also associated with other subordinate issues.
In summation， on the one hand， philosophy shares with other forms of intellectual investigation the common universal ground — social practice； on the other， philosophy has its own particular ground — the fundamental problem concerning the relationship between thinking and being — which is distinct from those of other forms of intellectual investigation. If we conduct a synthetic study of both of these grounds， we will better understand the historical development of philosophy.
The history of philosophy may therefore be defined as the dialectical movement of cognition originating in human social practice and developing primarily around the relationship between thinking and being.
（2） The Union of the Historical Method and the Logical Method
The union of the historical and the logical methods is a rational element of Hegel’s philosophy， which has been assimilated into dialectical materialism. It requires， on the one hand， that we adhere to materialism in researching the history of philosophy and regard actual history as the starting point and the basis of logical thinking； on the other hand， that we carefully strip philosophical systems of their outward appearances and avoid distraction by historical accident， so that we can distinguish the links of logical development from the contingent phenomena of history. By the historical method， we mean the identification of the main historical thread of the object of study and the observation of its historical origins， its grounds， and the periods through which it has passed. To properly grasp the underlying historical connections， one must clear away outward appearances and historical accidents in order to analyze the essential contradictions of the object and study the pattern of each developmental period or link. Then， by way of synthesis， one is able to grasp the logical chain and the law of the development； this， as a matter of fact， is precisely the essence of the logical method. The historical method is therefore in union with the logical method.
The history of philosophy presents itself as an alternating series of mutually opposing philosophical systems. The philosophical system worked out by each major philosopher was a conceptual framework formed for the exposition and justification of his own ideas. In studying the history of philosophy， we should seek to understand each of these systems of the past， while at the same time breaking through them and identifying the indispensable links of the history of human knowledge. For this reason， we must place each philosophical system of the past in its historical context and examine its social and historical conditions and its epistemological roots. For example， Confucius defended outdated social ideas and his doctrine of the “Mandate of Heaven” reflected a socially conservative stand. However， his epistemological doctrine of the unity of humanity and knowledge was anchored in the big tree of human cognition， for it involved a necessary link in the dialectical movement of human cognition — rational agency. However， Confucius overemphasized the role of this link and took the principle of reason to be absolute， which led to an idealistic philosophical system. If we make a concrete analysis of the various philosophical systems in the past with respect to their social and epistemological roots， we may reveal some links of the chain of human cognition involved， and thus be able to grasp the logical development of the history of philosophy as the quintessence of the history of human knowledge.
By uniting the historical method and the logical method in the study of the history of philosophy， we will find that this history reflects the contradictory movement of human cognition. Contradictions are precisely that which philosophers dispute. One contradiction arises， develops， and is resolved； then another， a fresh one， comes into existence and is solved after a period of development. This is a progressive process which moves in cycles and approximates an ascending spiral or a series of circles， so that the whole history of philosophy can be likened to a great circle formed from many smaller ones.
Viewed in this way， there seem to be three primary circles in the history of Chinese philosophy. The first circle begins with the primitive doctrine of yin and yang and concludes with the unity of naive materialism and naive dialectics achieved by Xunzi， who sorted out the pre-Qin debates over the relationship between “Heaven and humankind” and between “names and actualities” more successfully and comprehensively than his predecessors. Since Xunzi’s theory represents a return to the starting point of Chinese philosophy， it may be understood as having completed the first circle. The second circle was completed when Wang Fuzhi addressed， in a similarly successful and comprehensive way， the philosophical controversies from the Qin and Han dynasties onward， such as the debates over li and qi （principle and matter）or Dao and qi （invisible laws and visible things）， and over xin and wu （mind and matter/things） or zhi and xing （知行knowledge and action）. Thus， the unity of naive materialism and naive dialectics was attained again， yet at a higher stage. In modern times， beginning from the Opium War， the main areas of philosophical controversy concerned the philosophy of history and epistemology， both of which were later concentrated on the debates over xin and wu （the relationship between thinking and being）. As practiced in China， Marxist philosophy incorporates the best elements of
traditional Chinese philosophy and resolves the modern philosophical debate over xin and wu in light of the dynamic revolutionary theory of knowledge as reflection of reality. Thus， it seems to have returned to Xunzi and Wang Fuzhi and completed the third circle， which has undergone a relatively independent developmental process. Each of these circles can be further divided into a number of smaller ones. It is such a chain of circles that makes up the phases of the history of Chinese philosophy. Each time it has gone through a full circle， philosophy has advanced a step. Accordingly， this book is divided into three parts： the pre-Qin period， the period from the Qin dynasty until the Opium War， and the modern period （1840-1949）.
The history of Chinese philosophy over several thousand years is exceedingly rich in content and contains much wisdom worth adopting； however， each of the influential philosophical systems in Chinese history has limitations as well. So， we must not accept these views uncritically， but should instead criticize their limitations while acknowledging their value. At the same time， we must not dismiss these philosophical systems outright because of their limitations， but instead make concrete analyses and critically distinguish their achievements from their failures.
購物車/收銀台(
0
) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 聯絡我們
| 運費計算
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
