本文選題：義理 + 考據(jù)�。� 參考：《北京聯(lián)合大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版)》2017年03期

【摘要】：自宋代以來,人們便將學(xué)術(shù)分為"義理"與"考據(jù)"兩途。就理想狀態(tài)而言,當(dāng)然應(yīng)當(dāng)是義理與考據(jù)并重;但在實踐中,大多數(shù)學(xué)者都是偏重一途,而且往往以自己的治學(xué)旨趣作為評價標(biāo)準(zhǔn),從而發(fā)生尖銳的觀點對立。就總體性的人文社會科學(xué)而言,"考據(jù)"與"義理"都是認識人類社會的重要途徑,"義理"的功用或許更為強大。但具體到史學(xué)研究,雖然因?qū)W者個性和研究內(nèi)容的差異,既可以偏重"考據(jù)",也可以偏重"義理",但"考據(jù)"無疑具有更加基礎(chǔ)性的地位。也就是說,在史學(xué)研究中,"考據(jù)"不應(yīng)當(dāng)是與"義理"并列的兩個途徑,而應(yīng)當(dāng)成為所有史學(xué)研究者都必須具備的自覺意識。
[Abstract]:Since the Song Dynasty, people have divided academic research into two ways: "righteousness" and "textual research". As far as the ideal state is concerned, of course, both righteousness and textual research should be emphasized, but in practice, most scholars pay more attention to one way, and often regard their academic purport as the evaluation criterion, thus producing sharp opposition of views. As far as the overall humanities and social sciences are concerned, textual research and justice are both important ways to understand human society, and the function of "righteousness" may be more powerful. But when it comes to the study of history, although the differences of scholars' personality and research contents make it possible to emphasize both "textual research" and "justice", "textual research" undoubtedly has a more basic position. In other words, in the study of historiography, textual research should not be two ways of juxtaposing with "righteousness", but should be a conscious consciousness that all historical researchers must possess.
【作者單位】： 北京行政學(xué)院《新視野》編輯部;
【分類號】：K092

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 蘇全有;史學(xué)研究狀況憂思錄[J];邯鄲師專學(xué)報;2001年02期

2 李植g，

本文編號：1789762