个人发展问题在马克思唯物史观中的地位

马克思从个体视角考察人类历史的基本思想包括：人类历史的前提是有生命的个人的存在,人们的社会历史始终只是他们的个体发展的历史,人类总体的进步、社会历史的发展,最终都落脚在每一个体的发展上,未来社会是每个个人都得到全面自由发展的联合体,本文从这些方面说明了个人发展问题在马克思唯物史观中的作用.     

历史事实:史学家建构过去的图景

中外历史哲学界对“历史事实”存在严重的争论,主要问题是关于历史事实的应用范围与含义上的分歧。其实,“历史事实”只能限制在历史认识论的范围内才有意义,而历史事实与史料中的事实也不能等同。从历史学家与“历史事实”的关系来看,历史事实依历史学家的存在而存在,“历史事实”是史学家建立的关于过去的图景,是一个关于过去历史实际的知识体系。     

牛肃《纪闻》及其史料价值探讨

牛肃所撰《纪闻》系唐代第一部小说集,所记多开元、天宝时事。原书大约宋以后亡佚,惟《太平广记》、《太平寰宇记》等存有120余条。《纪闻》中的人物传记、僧侣传记、鬼怪幽冥故事等对盛唐时期的社会生活、政治事件等多有直接反映,其中一些材料还为《新唐书》、《资治通鉴》、《宋高僧传》等所采用,故而具有极高的史料价值。     

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。     

朱熹史学观三题

朱熹提出了以史证理、以理阐史的史学观。一方面 ,他把史学研究作为穷理的一种途径 ,认为史学的价值在于通过对具体史实的了解来把握天理 ;另一方面 ,他又强调史学要以天理为权衡尺度 ,必须要在熟读经书、把握义理之后 ,才能治史。朱熹把史学纳入了理学的轨道。值得注意的是 ,朱熹非常重视史学的社会价值 ,强调治史为当世之用 ,其史学观表现出明显的经世致用的倾向。     

崔述的历史盛衰论

崔述穷一生精力 ,考辨古史 ,成就很大 ,对后世史学也有很大影响。但崔氏在考史中又论史、论历史盛衰 ,有很多精审见解 ,崔述很少用性理天道论历史变化 ,注意对历史过程考察 ;他对历史“势”的分析值得总结 ,注重从人事作用上对历史盛衰变动原因进行考察 ,也体现出对民众的同情。崔述的考史能在求真基础上求理 ,显示出特色来。     

《明实录》建文朝科举书写及其意涵

科举是建文历史的重要内容,也是其"文治"的具体表现。然而,《明实录》书写的建文朝科举,既缺乏三级科举考试的正面记载,又大体上掩盖了附传传主建文年间科举中式的信息。本不属于政治敏感性问题的科举史事,因其体现了建文帝泽被天下士子的恩典、妨碍了朱棣"文治"的弘扬,遭到了《明实录》的排斥。这表明实录对建文历史的讳饰,不只限于政治敏感性问题,而是一切有利于建文帝形象的史事。值得注意的是,史官在实录编修中采用春秋笔法披露了建文朝科举的蛛丝马迹,使得相关史事并没有在"国史"话语体系中完全被湮没。这反映出史官与君主在建文历史的认识、评价方面,存在一定的差异,此种现象并非晚明才出现,而是明初已露端倪。     

3. INDIGENOUS EMPIRES AND NATIVE NATIONS: BEYOND HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY IN PEKKA HÄMÄLÄINEN'S THE COMANCHE EMPIRE

How should historians write Native history? To what extent should one privilege Native terms, sources, chronologies, and epistemologies? And to what extent should historians align Native history with concepts developed for other peoples and places? These crucial questions about emic (insider) and etic (outsider) approaches to the past are cast into sharp relief in Pekka Hämäläinen's award‐winning The Comanche Empire. This essay charts the perils and possibilities of each position. It then explores possible ways to move beyond the emic/etic division that has dominated many of the recent debates about Native history through a rereading of an episode in which Comanche history collides with US and Mexican history.     

HISTORY AND THE MANIFEST IMAGE: HAYDEN WHITE AS A PHILOSOPHER OF HISTORY1

To claim that Hayden White has yet to be read seriously as a philosopher of history might seem false on the face of it. But do tropes and the rest provide any epistemic rationale for differing representations of historical events found in histories? As an explanation of White's influence on philosophy of history, such a proffered emphasis only generates a puzzle with regard to taking White seriously, and not an answer to the question of why his efforts should be worthy of any philosophical attention at all. For what makes his emphasis on narrative structure and its associated tropes of philosophical relevance? What, it may well be asked, did (or could) any theory that draws its categories from a stock provided by literary criticism contribute to explicating problems with regard to the warranting of claims about knowledge, explanation, or causation that represent those concerns that philosophy typically brings to this field? Robert Doran's anthologizing of previously uncollected pieces, ranging as they do over a literal half‐century of White's published work, offers an opportunity to identify explicitly those philosophical themes and arguments that regularly and prominently feature there. Moreover, White's essays in this volume demonstrate a credible knowledge of and interest in mainstream analytic philosophers of his era and also reveal White as deeply influenced by or well acquainted with other important philosophers of history. White thus invites a reading of his work as philosophy, and this volume presents the opportunity for accepting it as such.     

THE POETICS OF ANCIENT GREEK MEMORY AND THE HISTORICAL IMPERATIVE

This book examines Greek engagements with the past as articulations of memory formulated against the contingency of chance associated with temporality. Based on a phenomenological understanding of temporality, it identifies four memorializing strategies: continuity (tradition), regularity (exemplarity), development, and acceptance of chance. This framework serves in pursuing a twofold aim: to reconstruct the literary field of memory in fifth‐century bce Greece; and to interpret Greek historiography as a memorializing mode. The key contention advanced by this approach is that acts of memory entailed an “idea of history” that was articulated not only in historiography, but also in epinician poetry, elegy, tragedy, and oratory. The book offers a rich account of poetic conventions and contexts through which each of these genres counterbalanced contingency through the use of exemplary and traditional modes of memory. This fine analysis highlights the grip of the present on the past as a significant feature of both historiographical and nonhistoriographical genres. The essay argues that this work fills a disciplinary gap by extending the reflection on memory to a new period, Greek antiquity. The retrospective positioning of this period at the outset of Western historical thought brings Grethlein's investigation to the center of debates about memory, temporality, and the meaning history. In engaging with the book's argument, the essay suggests that historiographical memory emerged in Greece not as a first‐order encounter with time, but as a second‐order encounter with forgetting. This confrontation marked a certain separation of historiography from other memorializing genres. Whereas poetic and rhetorical memories were posited against contingency, historiography sought to retrieve those aspects of the past that may otherwise have been irretrievably lost and forgotten. In doing so, it formulated the historiographical imperative as a negation of forgetting that problematized the truth‐value of memory and the very act of remembering the past.