柯林武德进步思想研究

柯林武德关于历史发展的理论在他的思想中占据了非常重要的地位,但是国内外学术界对这方面一直没有进行系统的研究。本从柯林武德对其他各种历史发展现的批判入手,结合他的历史认识论思想,认为柯林武德的历史进步思想包含看：过去是进步观念中必不可少的因素;进步必须是全面的;进步应该具有多种标准。在更深的层次上,历史认识同时又是历史行为,他认识历史进步的前提在于他能重演构成历史进步的人类解决问题的过程。通过重演这一过程,他也就增进了自己的能力,从而创造了他自身的进步。     

关于毛泽东评价历史人物标准的思考

毛泽东有关评价历史人物的理论和方法,是毛泽东的历史理论遗产的一个重要方面。本文拟就毛泽东的有关论述以及他对历史人物所作的具体评价,在他留给我们的巨大思维空间里,探讨与评价历史人物标准有关的几个问题,从而获得知识与启示。 一 以历史人物对于社会历史所起的作用作为评价历史人物的标准,这在史学界已经形成了比较一致的看法。而其中有一种论点认为,历史人物所起的社会作用,归根结底是对于社会生产力所起的作用,由此就将历史人物评价的标准逻辑地归结到对社会生产力所起的     

继续坚持“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”

在七十年代末的拨乱反正中,胡耀邦提出,研究这十几年的历史,不要根据哪个文件、哪个同志讲话,要看实践。他主张以实践为检验真理、辨别路线是非的标准,总结和评价十年"文革"。他以实践标准排除了多年来流行的文件标准、语录标准。他审阅了《实践是检验真理的唯一标准》的文稿,并拍板定稿。这篇文章的发表,引发了一场关于真理标准问题的大讨论。在邓小平等老一     

虞集的史学思想

虞集有深厚的家学渊源,他的理学特点也反映到其史学思想上。他以王道德治为标准,考历史盛衰之“理”。在《经世大典序录》中,通过总结典制,他充分肯定了元朝多民族统一国家的历史意义,宣传和提倡养民厚生思想。他重视历史经验的借鉴作用,对辽、金、宋三史的史料收集和编撰体例有独到之见。他的历史文献学思想注重博采、广稽、求实     

试论侯外庐关于社会史分期的法典化标准

侯外庐关于中国社会史研究提出一个重要的理论观点 ,即以法典化标准 (体系化的制度形式 )作为判断社会形态的标准。他从生产方式、政治设施、阶级关系和意识形态诸方面分析了战国至秦汉时期的法典化即制度变迁 ;又将法典化标准运用于中国封建社会的分期问题上 ,对中国封建社会由前期向后期的转变 ,提出了以均田制和两税法作为这一转变的法典化标准。关于中国封建社会后期的演变 ,他以法典化标准对“一条鞭法”和“更名田”、“摊丁入亩”作了阐释 ,将制度的变化与土地私有制的出现、工商经济的发展和阶级关系的变化联系起来考察 ,一以贯之 ,使其法典化理论更加完善。他关于法典化标准的研究是一种注重整体的历史发展的研究方法。其理论意义 ,不在于提出了中国社会发展的总体答案 ,而在于指出了研究的思考路径。我们应该在其研究的基础上 ,从历史发展各种因素的“交互作用”及其文化意义、从法典的表现形式和范围诸方面 ,进一步深化法典化标准问题的研究。     

汉光武帝刘秀的人格魅力

本文以略带调侃的笔调写出了汉光武帝刘秀独特的人格魅力,值得一读。中兴皇帝刘秀个头不高,只有七尺三寸,相对于他那个时代八尺以上的伟男标准,只能算个"轻量级"。但轻量级的他却有着重量级的人格魅力。在中国历史上,他是一位无可争议的治国平天下的高手,而他的成功在一定程度上正是得益于他独特的人格魅力。     

先进性的内涵是不断发展和丰富的

在"5.31"讲话中,江总书记阐述了这样一个重要思想,他说:党的先进性是具体的历史的,必须放到推动当代中国先进生产力和先进文化的发展中去考察,放到维护和实现最广大人民的根本利益的奋斗中去考察,归根到底要看党在推动历史前进中的实际作用.这个思想完全符合历史唯物主义,是对党的历史经验的总结,也是检验党的先进性的标准.     

陈云：“新书三分好就要鼓掌”

正评弹这个曲种,有大量的传统书目。如何对待传统书,陈云主张"丢掉坏的,保留好的",不同意"一刀切"的办法。他说:"闭目不理有几百年历史的传统书目,是一种历史虚无主义。"他也不赞成那种全盘肯定不加整理的做法,他严肃地指出:"衡量一个节目好坏的根本标准,要看它对人民是否有利。"     

试论许衡的历史思想

许衡从理学的基本命题出发,对社会历史的盛衰原因进行思考,他认识到历史变化的必然性以及盛衰治乱的对立统一关系。许衡将是否实行王道德治作为判断历史盛衰的标准,主张无论君臣都要“以公为心,以爱为心”,并阐明了一系列正君心、求民心的思想。许衡具有鲜明的通变史观,他结合当时的社会实际,总结历史经验,为元朝统治者论证了“行汉法”的必要性和具体内容。许衡论史而求理的思考,对于提高元代历史观的哲学思辨能力十分有益。他的历史思想对于元代多民族统一国家的建设具有积极的促进作用,也有利于蒙汉等多民族文化的不断融合与共同提高。     

论历史研究的核心问题——读卡尔的《历史是什么?》

自从有文明以来,人类一直在探寻历史是什么,历史学家卡尔继续着历史是什么的千年话题,他进行了大量的具体的历史研究,通过研究历史的核心问题,结合自己的研究成果回答了历史是什么这一史学理论的著名难题。本文试对他的研究过程剖析,以便揭示他研究历史的方法,从而能更深入地研究历史的本质。     

Ankersmit's Postmodernist Historiography: The Hyperbole of "Opacity"

Ankersmit's articulation of a postmodern theory of history takes seriously both the strengths of traditional historicism and the right of historians to decide what makes sense for disciplinary practice. That makes him an exemplary interlocutor. Ankersmit proposes a theory of historical "representation" which radicalizes the narrative approach to historiography along the lines of poststructuralist textualism. Against this postmodernism but invoking some of his own arguments, I defend the traditional historicist position. I formulate criticisms of the theory of reference entailed in his notion of "narrative substance," of his master analogy of historiography with modern painting, and finally of his characterization of historical hermeneutics. In each case I find him guilty of the hyperbole which he himself cautions against. While it is true that historical narratives cannot be taken to be transparent, in taking them to be opaque Ankersmit puts himself in an untenable position. Finally, Ankersmit seeks to buttress his theoretical case by an interpretation of the new cultural historical texts of authors like Davis and Ginzburg. While this is a concreteness heartily to be welcomed in philosophers of history, I cannot find his construction of this new school's work plausible.     

The Reception of Hayden White

Evaluation of the influence of Hayden White on the theory of history ismade difficult by his preference for the essay form, valued for its experimental character, and by the need to find comparable data. A quantitative study of citations of his work in English and foreign-language journals, 1973–1993, reveals that although historians were prominent among early readers of Metahistory , few historical journals reviewed White'stwo subsequent collections of essays and few historians—except inGermany—cited them. Those historians who did tended still to cite Metahistory and often the parts of it devoted specifically to nineteenth-century historians.
Literary critics, on the other hand, were relatively late to discover White, but during the "narrative turn" of the 1970s and 1980s his work was important for students of the novel and the theater. Recognition of it was especially marked in Spanish-speaking countries and in Germany.
As a result, salient themes of White's later work—the ideological andpolitical import of narrativization, the "historical sublime," and writing in the "middle voice"—have largely gone unremarked by historians and philosophers. Both these groups have tended to be irritated by White's bracketing of questions of historical epistemology; some have accused him of effacing the line between fiction and history, while White's numerous literary readers have generally applauded his tendencies in thisdirection. White however has consistently maintained that there is a difference, although not the one conventionally postulated. His exploration of writing in the "middle voice" brings his work full circle, in that it promises a "modernist" realism appropriate for representing the "sublime" events of our century.     

柳诒徵论中国传统史学的治史原则与方法

柳诒徵作为中国现代文化保守主义史学大师结合西方新史学思想,对中国传统史学做了大量阐述。他对中国传统治史原则和方法的阐述尤为丰富和精深,主要包括五方面:一、"治史之必本于德"的原则;二、国史书写的道德评判准则;三、史识与史德、史法的关系和治史重在求取史识;四、注重史事普遍联系的史学记载和表述;五、正确看待考据在治史中的地位和作用。这些史学思想体现了柳诒徵史学通贯古今和兼融中西的基本特征。     

Historiography and Chinese modernity—A study of the historiographical ideas of Li Dazhao

ABSTRACT

In search of modernity in China, history played a crucial role. Many leading intellectuals in modern China were historians and/or historical thinkers. Despite his untimely death, Li Dazhao was particularly important. Among his cohorts, Li was arguably the first one who paid close attention to the need for the Chinese to change their views of the past and accept Darwinism as a new historical outlook. That Li later became an avowed Marxist also had a good deal to do with his belief in Darwinism or evolutionism. He was fully convinced that history moves along a linear progressive path, which enabled him and many others to argue the necessity of changing China for the modern. In a word, the acceptance of historical evolutionism paved the way for the commitment to modernity by the Chinese.     

王鸣盛历史地理考证的通识——以州郡及其治所建置的动态考察为例

清乾嘉时期杰出的史学家王鸣盛 ,长于舆地之学。其历史地理考证内容丰富 ,方法精当 ,既有严谨的治学态度指导下的细密考证 ,更有归纳、概括和提高的综合分析 ,并上升到一些规律性的认识。王鸣盛动态考察正史地理志记载州郡建置沿革所反映的规律性特征 ,纵论汉唐之际郡国、治所的设置及其变迁等项 ,尤其体现出治史的通识 ,至今仍具有重要的参考价值和方法论上的启迪意义。     

论历史人物评价中的"盖棺定论"问题

人物评价是历史研究中的重要内容。由于诸多因素的影响,“盖棺定论”思想根深蒂固。但从历史学的发展史上看,很少有历史人物能有定论。从评价客体的复杂性及其活动价值随着社会发展而不一致方面来讲,“盖棺定论”是不可能的。从评价主体要受到各种因素的制约以及认识要不断的反复方面来讲,同样不可能有“盖棺定论”。“盖棺定论”限制了史家主体意识的发挥,弱化了人们的思维,因此要改变“定论”模式,充分发挥主体的主观能动性,以宽容的态度研究历史人物,方能使历史人物评价不断向真理方向发展,并具有鲜明的时代特征。     

Historians and Their Duties

We need to specify what ethical responsibility historians, as historians, owe, and to whom. We should distinguish between natural duties and (non‐natural) obligations, and recognize that historians' ethical responsibility is of the latter kind. We can discover this responsibility by using the concept of “accountability”. Historical knowledge is central. Historians' central ethical responsibility is that they ought to tell the objective truth. This is not a duty shared with everybody, for the right to truth varies with the audience. Being a historian is essentially a matter of searching for historical knowledge as part of an obligation voluntarily undertaken to give truth to those who have a right to it. On a democratic understanding, people need and are entitled to an objective understanding of the historical processes in which they live. Factual knowledge and judgments of value are both required, whatever philosophical view we might have of the possibility of a principled distinction between them. Historians owe historical truth not only to the living but to the dead. Historians should judge when that is called for, but they should not distort historical facts. The rejection of postmodernism's moralism does not free historians from moral duties. Historians and moral philosophers alike are able to make dispassionate moral judgments, but those who feel untrained should be educated in moral understanding. We must ensure the moral and social responsibility of historical knowledge. As philosophers of history, we need a rational reconstruction of moral judgments in history to help with this.     

HERBERT BUTTERFIELD AND THE ETHICS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY

相似文献   

刘知几史学批评的特点

刘知几的《史通》是一部以史学批评为特色的史学理论著作,涉及史家和史著之多,在中国史学史上可谓是空前绝后。他发扬王充的批判精神,“直书”前代史家之得失,即使是圣贤孔子和当朝皇家修史也在其批评之列,表现了无畏的求实精神;他具体评价史书的优劣,褒扬不讳其短,批评不抑其长,主张史学评论要探赜史家的著述旨意。他以理、势论述史学问题,增强了史学批评的理性色彩,在中国史学的发展上具有承先启后的意义。他史学批评的核心是史义。实录直书和“激扬名教”在他的史义体系内实现了既相互制约又相辅相成的统一。     

章开沅教授与中国近现代史写作

选题是历史学论著写作成败的关键,要有创新并考虑研究的可持续发展。历史研究及写作需要史实的实证和史识的阐述来支撑。缺少史实的实证,历史就变成一个空架子,但要避免史料的堆砌。史料工作不是机械的工作,而是高层次的智力劳动。转引材料应该注明出处,以示尊重别人的劳动。至于史识,也即史学家的思辨,这有很高的甚至是很残酷的要求,真正的史学家(例如司马迁),能够达到历史哲学方面的理解,甚至是对宇宙生命的终极诉求,这也要求史学家应该有史学的参与意识。此外,文字表达是一件很重要而又很痛苦的事情,历史学家不应该原谅自己在文采方面的缺失,而应该提高文字表达能力,适当地强调史感,以达到设身处地地与古人对话、交流、沟通。总之,史料、史识、文采三者应该达到完美的统一。