本文關(guān)鍵詞：文化比較視域下“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)再思考，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

        在中西碰撞、古今更替的歷史背景下,在國(guó)家和民族面臨救亡圖存之時(shí),“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)高舉“德”“賽”兩面旗幟,發(fā)揮了重大的文化啟蒙作用。它一直成為學(xué)術(shù)界討論的熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。現(xiàn)代中國(guó)文化的發(fā)展,隱含著一條對(duì)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)不斷解讀的反思之路。“引論”部分首先對(duì)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的概念加以厘定,對(duì)其起訖時(shí)限予以界定,梳理了過(guò)去的研究成果。“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的多重面相、多種意義在過(guò)去的文化反思中不斷被揭示出來(lái),不論是對(duì)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)與學(xué)生愛(ài)國(guó)主義運(yùn)動(dòng)概念的辨析,對(duì)新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)思想啟蒙內(nèi)涵的詮釋,還是對(duì)新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)思想流派的梳理、傳統(tǒng)在后現(xiàn)代中的意義等方面,都有了新的進(jìn)展。經(jīng)歷了20世紀(jì)80年代的文化熱和90年代的文化保守主義思潮,近年來(lái)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的研究出現(xiàn)一個(gè)趨于平和、尋求融合的時(shí)期,人們不再拘泥于啟蒙與反啟蒙的論爭(zhēng),而是以開(kāi)放的文化心態(tài),突破“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)以來(lái)的學(xué)術(shù)范式,在回應(yīng)時(shí)代課題的基礎(chǔ)上綜合創(chuàng)新。然而,“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)轟轟烈烈的文化啟蒙并沒(méi)有如人們所愿,真正實(shí)現(xiàn)科學(xué)與民主。與西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)相比,“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的啟蒙究竟發(fā)生了什么樣的變化?遇到了哪些特殊的困境?依然是需要深化的課題。從文化比較的視域出發(fā),彰顯啟蒙的坐標(biāo)意義,對(duì)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的啟蒙特征與特殊困境有更明晰的呈現(xiàn),為反思與超越“五四”尋找到突破口,即是本論文要努力做的工作。第一章追溯了“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)以前文化比較思想及面臨的問(wèn)題。“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)與西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)相似,是促成中國(guó)文化近現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型的文化啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng),但不同的是,作為一種外源性啟蒙,它是在中西文化碰撞、沖突中發(fā)生的,表現(xiàn)為文化比較視域下的文化啟蒙。洋務(wù)運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)期,“中體西用”是在中西學(xué)割裂基礎(chǔ)之上的文化比較框架,在意識(shí)到船堅(jiān)炮利只是西學(xué)之末以后,時(shí)人對(duì)西學(xué)之體的理解開(kāi)始上升到政治制度層面,如何在中學(xué)之中安置西體的問(wèn)題成為國(guó)人亟待解決的難題,中學(xué)之體正統(tǒng)的至上地位開(kāi)始受到質(zhì)疑與威脅。維新派雖然也堅(jiān)持“中體西用”,但內(nèi)涵已有所變化,傾向于“新舊之爭(zhēng)”基礎(chǔ)上的中西會(huì)通,在一定意義上消除了體用框架中文化價(jià)值判斷的偏見(jiàn)。嚴(yán)復(fù)是“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)“發(fā)現(xiàn)”范式奠基人,他所指出的“黜偽而崇真”的自然科學(xué)方法和“屈私以為公”的民主政治制度即是科學(xué)與民主的先聲,他對(duì)進(jìn)化論的信奉和對(duì)實(shí)證經(jīng)驗(yàn)的推崇也確立了“五四”新文化派與“科玄論戰(zhàn)”中的科學(xué)派的基本前提。在“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)前夜,東西方文化無(wú)處不在昭示著文化時(shí)代性的巨大落差,在中西文化比較中文化時(shí)代性凸顯表現(xiàn)為“世界主義”傾向的形成和“變”的思想的激進(jìn)化。第二章對(duì)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)中的兩次文化論戰(zhàn)和科學(xué)主義思潮的興起作了概述和簡(jiǎn)要的比較分析。從洋務(wù)運(yùn)動(dòng)、戊戌變法、辛亥革命,到“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng),由器物層面的圖強(qiáng)到政治制度的變革,再到思想文化領(lǐng)域的覺(jué)悟,為東方文化與西方文化的論戰(zhàn)在歷史與邏輯的雙重意義上提供了前提。從東西文化論戰(zhàn)中可以看出,對(duì)科學(xué)與民主的肯認(rèn)、對(duì)東西文化之間根本性差異的認(rèn)識(shí),新文化派與文化保守主義者是一致的,但兩者在東西文化的差異性質(zhì)的判斷、新舊文化的理解、世界文化未來(lái)走向等方面表現(xiàn)出迥然不同的理解�？茖W(xué)與民主是西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)孕育出的兩大成果,“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)則試圖在缺乏兩者的社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)上,通過(guò)對(duì)兩者的提倡來(lái)回應(yīng)救亡圖存的時(shí)代主題,表現(xiàn)出科學(xué)與民主的泛化趨向。“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)深化了對(duì)民主的認(rèn)識(shí),強(qiáng)調(diào)了人的解放,肯定人的價(jià)值和生命的意義,但表現(xiàn)出批判中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)倫理思想,側(cè)重民主的文化啟蒙意義,帶有民族主義色彩等特點(diǎn),把民主視作一種價(jià)值概念,啟迪民智的一種工具。在缺少近代科學(xué)的現(xiàn)實(shí)條件下,科學(xué)更多的是在哲學(xué)、文化的語(yǔ)境中被認(rèn)識(shí)的,科學(xué)不僅是求真的智識(shí),還成為一種自明的信仰。科學(xué)超越了知識(shí)領(lǐng)域,擴(kuò)及社會(huì)科學(xué),甚至是宇宙人生各個(gè)領(lǐng)域,搖身變?yōu)闊o(wú)所不能的新偶像。科學(xué)泛化表現(xiàn)為“求善”到“求真”文化價(jià)值取向的轉(zhuǎn)變,實(shí)證主義和形而上化的濃厚色彩和科學(xué)的信仰化取向。“科玄論戰(zhàn)”是東西文化論戰(zhàn)的延續(xù)與深入,既有中西文化關(guān)系問(wèn)題,又有中國(guó)文化、哲學(xué)現(xiàn)代性問(wèn)題；既反映了西方文化中科學(xué)主義與人文主義關(guān)系問(wèn)題,也折射了形而上學(xué)與現(xiàn)代性的糾結(jié)。“科玄論戰(zhàn)”中的科學(xué)派受西方實(shí)證主義思潮的影響,從科學(xué)與哲學(xué)的聯(lián)系入手,試圖實(shí)現(xiàn)哲學(xué)的科學(xué)化,以科學(xué)統(tǒng)一宇宙人生,具體表現(xiàn)為：第一,科學(xué)代替經(jīng)學(xué),試圖重新建立一種形而上的世界圖景；第二,科學(xué)主義視域中人與人生的機(jī)械化；第三,真對(duì)善的遮蔽；第四,通過(guò)科學(xué)方法的萬(wàn)能,實(shí)現(xiàn)價(jià)值領(lǐng)域的僭越。當(dāng)科學(xué)派將科學(xué)作為一種全息的視野審視宇宙人生時(shí),科學(xué)視野的獨(dú)斷化就導(dǎo)致了科學(xué)主義的產(chǎn)生。玄學(xué)派對(duì)形而上學(xué)與科學(xué)視野的不同有著強(qiáng)烈的自覺(jué),而這種自覺(jué)來(lái)源于對(duì)人的存在的二重性的深刻認(rèn)識(shí),雖然在論戰(zhàn)中黯然謝幕,但其提出的人生觀及自由意志問(wèn)題關(guān)涉著人的終極關(guān)懷,是“安心立命”之所在,更有其深刻的歷史意蘊(yùn),有力地揭示了任何一種外源性啟蒙必須堅(jiān)持自身文化民族性維度的必要性�！翱菩搼�(zhàn)”還標(biāo)志著早期馬克思主義與自由主義的分道揚(yáng)鑣。文中對(duì)早期馬克思主義與自由主義從“問(wèn)題與主義”之爭(zhēng)到“科玄論戰(zhàn)”的分歧進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)要的分析。在“問(wèn)題與主義”之爭(zhēng)中,兩者表現(xiàn)為主義的歷史與當(dāng)下作用、再造文明與社會(huì)革命、點(diǎn)滴改良與根本改造、對(duì)馬克思主義階級(jí)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)說(shuō)的不同認(rèn)識(shí)。胡適奉行的實(shí)驗(yàn)主義也顯示出了自身的兩大缺陷：實(shí)驗(yàn)主義通過(guò)方法論的化約成為了一種“真理”；實(shí)驗(yàn)主義長(zhǎng)于批判,短于建設(shè)。“科玄論戰(zhàn)”中早期馬克思主義與自由主義的分歧更突出學(xué)理預(yù)設(shè)上的不同：基礎(chǔ)的一元論與多元論的分野；物質(zhì)本體論與存疑的唯心論之區(qū)別。第三章的主要內(nèi)容是考察“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)與西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的異同。“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)使得中國(guó)文化迅速轉(zhuǎn)入現(xiàn)代文化的軌道,但科學(xué)與民主仍然是擺在我們面前的一項(xiàng)未竟的事業(yè),與西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)塑造的現(xiàn)代性歷史潮流形成鮮明對(duì)比。首先,通過(guò)西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)中人權(quán)代替君權(quán)、人本代替神本、科學(xué)代替信仰特征的分析,揭示啟蒙的實(shí)質(zhì)即通過(guò)理性發(fā)現(xiàn)人的自我。“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)中的啟蒙表現(xiàn)形式,是通過(guò)對(duì)科學(xué)與民主的高揚(yáng)和對(duì)封建的綱常名教的批判挺立起人的主體性,從而凸顯人的理性精神。與西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的具體內(nèi)容雖然不同,但它們的實(shí)質(zhì)都是通過(guò)理性發(fā)現(xiàn)人的自我,人的發(fā)現(xiàn)是中西啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的共同目標(biāo)。其次,揭示中西啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的不同之處。一是文化傳統(tǒng)的不同。西方是理性與神性相結(jié)合的文化傳統(tǒng),中國(guó)文化以儒學(xué)為主流、儒釋道互補(bǔ),“道統(tǒng)”一脈相承,關(guān)注的領(lǐng)域是社會(huì)人生,宗教意識(shí)淡薄。兩種文化傳統(tǒng)的不同根本在于理性與德性的不同人性預(yù)設(shè)。一是啟蒙與傳統(tǒng)關(guān)系的不同�！拔逅摹毙挛幕\(yùn)動(dòng)在中西文化的比較中,把西方文明的優(yōu)勢(shì)泛衍到文化比較的領(lǐng)域,從一開(kāi)始就形成了一個(gè)遮掩的價(jià)值判斷,表現(xiàn)出對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的全面否定。在西方的啟蒙進(jìn)程中,啟蒙與傳統(tǒng)卻表現(xiàn)為一種回歸關(guān)系,它是在西方文化自身體系內(nèi)做出的自我調(diào)整。所以,在某種意義上,西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)中的希臘路向的復(fù)歸,它所反對(duì)的是神性的宰制性壟斷,而不是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)進(jìn)行全面的否定。它的反傳統(tǒng)并沒(méi)有打破整個(gè)西方文化體系的構(gòu)架。再次,分析中國(guó)啟蒙的特殊性。一是啟蒙的外源性與文化民族性維度的凸顯�！拔逅摹毙挛幕\(yùn)動(dòng)作為受到西方啟蒙精神影響的文化啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng),標(biāo)志著中國(guó)文化由近代到現(xiàn)代的時(shí)代轉(zhuǎn)化。同時(shí),啟蒙的外源性決定了“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)面臨文化民族性的糾結(jié)。啟蒙的外源性決定了任何一種非西方文化在現(xiàn)代化的道路上都要面臨文化民族性的維度,這是文化保守主義雖然顯得不太合時(shí)宜卻又具有深刻思想價(jià)值的原因,也是“五四”留給我們的另一種意義上的啟蒙。二是救亡壓倒啟蒙：國(guó)家民族本位取代個(gè)體意識(shí)。西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的中心是對(duì)人的研究,把啟蒙推進(jìn)到人的主體性層面。與此相比,“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的啟蒙思想也注意到啟蒙張揚(yáng)個(gè)性一面,但由于國(guó)家與民族的存亡危機(jī),并未向西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)一樣進(jìn)入到深層的理性與自由去揭示啟蒙意義,而是把啟蒙定位于科學(xué)與民主這樣一種外顯的范疇。三是啟蒙塑造的理性精神在西方社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)層面上具有堅(jiān)實(shí)的市民社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)。與此相比,中國(guó)啟蒙顯然缺少市民社會(huì)成熟的現(xiàn)實(shí)土壤。從社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)看,中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)的“家”、“國(guó)”同構(gòu)的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)不利于市民社會(huì)的形成。中國(guó)市民社會(huì)的建立,其特點(diǎn)表現(xiàn)為一種文化上的覺(jué)醒,國(guó)家在社會(huì)的變革中扮演主導(dǎo)的角色,市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的貧弱狀況尚無(wú)法提供有力的世俗基礎(chǔ)的支持。第四章對(duì)“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)在以下兩個(gè)方面進(jìn)行了反思：理性的獨(dú)斷化必然導(dǎo)致啟蒙精神走向自身的反面,這是啟蒙的悖論所在。對(duì)歷史時(shí)代的永恒的批判是對(duì)待“啟蒙”應(yīng)有的態(tài)度；早期馬克思主義者意識(shí)到啟蒙的雙重性,把新文化看作對(duì)傳統(tǒng)文化和近代文化的雙重超越,尋求回歸傳統(tǒng)與全盤西化之外超階段發(fā)展的“第三條道路”,依然有著重要的啟示意義。反傳統(tǒng)并不是啟蒙的應(yīng)有之義,“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)非主流思潮凸顯的是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)維度的維護(hù),作為外源性啟蒙,我們應(yīng)從中汲取更多的思想養(yǎng)分；現(xiàn)代新儒家的科學(xué)化與馬克思主義哲學(xué)的人文化是文化自我反省透顯出的理性與價(jià)值的整合取向,這是超越“五四”啟蒙心態(tài)、進(jìn)行傳統(tǒng)創(chuàng)造性轉(zhuǎn)化的契機(jī)。

    With the collision of modernized West and conserved China, May Fourth New Culture Movement, holding high the two flags of science and democracy, played an important role of cultural enlightenment when the Chinese nation was faced with a great survival crisis. This has been a hot academic issue under discussion. The development of modern Chinese culture implicated a way of reflection and interpretation of May Fourth New Culture Movement.The introduction part defines the concept of May Fourth New Culture Movement, sets precisely its starting and ending time, and summarizes the previous studies. The multi-facets and multi-meaning of May Fourth New Culture Movement were revealed in the past reflections, which presented much progress in the following topics as, the distinction of May Fourth New Culture Movement and the students’Patriotic Movement, the interpretation of the connotation of the New Culture Movement Enlightenment, the review on the schools of thoughts of the New Culture Movement, and the meaning of tradition in the postmodernism. Through the cultural rush of1980s and the cultural conservatism of1990s, in recent years, the study on May Fourth New Culture Movement has opened up a new period, which is more peaceful and tends to seek integration. During this period, people no longer stick to the Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment debates. Instead, with an open cultural mentality, people break the academic paradigm since May Fourth New Culture Movement, and progresses rapidly in response to contemporary issues based on the integrated innovation. However, the vigorous cultural enlightenment of May Fourth New Culture Movement does not meet the public’s expectations, which aims to realize science and democracy. Compared with the Western Enlightenment, what had happened to May Fourth New Culture Movement in the Enlightenment? What kind of special difficulties it had encountered? Therefore, it is still necessary to deepen the subject. This dissertation tries, from a cultural comparative perspective, to show clear the coordinative meaning of enlightenment, to present the traits and difficulties of enlightenment, and to discover a breakout for reflecting and overcoming May Fourth New Culture Movement. Chapter one traces the previous thoughts and problems in the field of cultural comparison before May Fourth New Culture Movement Cultures. May Fourth New Culture Movement, similar to the Western Enlightenment, is a cultural enlightenment movement promoting the modern transformation of Chinese culture. The difference between them lies in that the Enlightenment in China is exogenous, which is a result of collision of the Eastern and Western cultures, and performs a role in the cultural enlightenment from a cultural comparison perspective. During the Westernization Movement,"Chinese essence, Western techniques" is a comparative framework based on the separation of the West and East. After realizing that a strong army is not the essence of Western culture, reformers began to understand westernization from the perspective of political systems. As a result, the question about how to deal with the relationship of West and East assumed the vital importance. Under this circumstance, the East root was challenged and threatened. Although reformers still stuck to the principal of "Chinese essence, Western techniques", actually the content had changed, and tended to get rid of the biases toward the differences between West and East. Yan Fu is the founder of the "discovered" paradigm in May Fourth New Culture Movement the founder of Paradigm, he advocated the natural scientific methods of "Elimination of the false and worship of the truth," and called for a democratic political system of "sacrificing private for public", which is the harbinger of science and democracy. He believed in the theory of evolution and the practical experience, established the basic premises for the New Culturists and the school of thoughy of science. On the May Fourth New Culture Movement Eve, the great cultural gap between Eastern and Western culture is viewed everywhere. In the era of Chinese and Western cultural comparison, relevance is the formation of the "cosmopolitan" tendencies and the radicalization of the idea "change".Chapter two gives a summary and comparative analysis of May Fourth New Culture Movement in the two cultural debates and intellectual trend. From the Westernization Movement, the Reform Movement, the1911Revolution, to the "May4th" New Culture Movement, and strengthen the country level from the objects to change the political system, to the ideological and cultural awareness, for the Oriental culture and Western culture, history and logic Debate available on the double meaning of the premise. From the debate of the East and West, the new centralists and the cultural conservatives agreed on such issues, as they have gradually gained recognition toward science and democracy and understanding on the differences between Western and Eastern culture. However, they had quite different ideas on other problems, such as the judgment of essential differences between West and East, understandings on the old and new cultures, and the future of the world culture. Science and democracy are the tow results of Western Enlightenment. The May Fourth New Culture Movement is trying to, in the absence of appropriate social factors; make the two notions of science and democracy generalized through both the promotion of the response to the national salvation era theme. The May Fourth New Culture Movement deepened their understanding of democracy, emphasized the people’s liberation and affirmed the value and meaning of life. Meanwhile, it held critical ideas toward Chinese traditional ethics, focused on the democratic significance of the cultural enlightenment with nationalism, and viewed the concept of democracy as a value and a tool to enlighten the whole nation. In the absence of modern science, science is more a philosophical. Cultural context is recognized, scientific truth is not only intellectual, but also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Beyond the field of scientific knowledge, expansion and social sciences, and even the universe in all areas of life, it suddenly becomes an all-powerful new idol. Scientific generalization showed a turn from the pursuit of goodness to the pursuit of truth and a strong scientific belief and orientation toward positivism and metaphysics.The Controversy of Science and Metaphysics is a continuation of East-West controversy. It involves not only Chinese and Western relations, but also contemporary issues as Chinese culture and philosophy. It reflects not only the relationship between scientism and humanism in western culture, but also the twist between metaphysics and modernity. The Controversy in the Scientology by the thought of Western positivism, the link between science and philosophy from the start, tries to achieve a scientific philosophy, unity of the universe and life science, specifically as follows:First, science will take the place of experience, trying to re-establish a metaphysical picture of the world; second, the mechanization of human and human in the perspective of science; third, the shelter of truth for goodness; Fourth, to realize the value of field overstepped through the universal scientific method. When Scientology takes science as a holographic vision of the universe and life, the scientific view of the arbitrariness leads to the emergence of scientific doctrine. Metaphysics and science party had a strong vision of different conscious, and this initiative comes from the profound understanding of the duality of human existence. Although Metaphysics sadly in this debate curtain call, the questions of life and free will they raised are concerned with human ultimate happiness and where a peaceful life can start. With its meaning, it effectively reveals the necessity for any exogenous enlightenment to adhere to its own national character and cultural dimensions. The Controversy of Science and Metaphysics also marked the separation of early Marxism and liberalism. This dissertation analyzes briefly the divergence from the "problem versus doctrine" to "The Controversy of Science and Metaphysics " between early Marxism and liberalism. In the "problem versus doctrine", their argument focuses on problems as the historical and instant functions of doctrine, re-constructed civilization and social revolution, piecemeal evolution and the fundamental transformation, the different understandings of class competition. The experimentalist Hu Shi pursued also showed its own two defects:experimentalism becoming a truth through methodology; experimentalism is good at criticize, but short at building. In the Controversy of Science and Metaphysics, the differences between early Marxism and liberalism mainly lie in the different presupposition of theory:the basis of a distinction between monism and pluralism; the distinction between substance ontology and doubts about the idealism.Chapter three compares the New Culture Movement with the Western Enlightenment. The May Fourth New Culture Movement promoted the Chinese culture’s turning into modern culture, but science and democracy are still our unfinished career, which has a long way to go when compared with the historical trend the Western Enlightenment had shaped. Firstly, by the Western Enlightenment, human rights replace the monarchical power, human-orientation replaces God, science replaces doctrine, we can discover the ego of self through sense May Fourth New Culture Movement in the form of enlightenment through science and democracy Praise and criticism of the feudal morality stand out from the human subjectivity, highlighting people’s rational spirit, with the specific content of the western Enlightenment, which are different. But, actually the person by reason of self-discovery, human is found to be the common goal of both Western and Eastern Enlightenment. Secondly, it reveals the differences. On the one hand, they have different cultural traditions:the West is a combination of ration and Godhood, while the Chinese culture follows the mainstream of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism and has very weak religious consciousness. Differences between the two actually lie in the different presupposition of humanity. On the other hand, the relationships between enlightenment and tradition are different. May Fourth New Culture Movement in the comparison of Chinese and Western culture, the advantages of Western civilization to the pan-cultural comparison of the areas of derivatives from the beginning formed to judge the value of a cover showing the traditional completely negated. In the Western Enlightenment, the relationship between Enlightenment and tradition is regressive. The Western culture does judgment within its own system and with the reason to oppose the monopoly of divinity. Therefore, the Western Enlightenment is the return to the traditional Greek way, and is against the divine domination of monopoly, instead of full negation to tradition. Its anti-tradition did not break the system architecture of Western culture. Thirdly, the Chinese Enlightenment has its own particularity. On the one hand, the exogenous Enlightenment and the cultural nationalism are in highlights. Affected by the spirit of the Enlightenment, May Fourth New Culture Movement marked that Chinese culture’s transformation from modern times to the contemporary age. Meanwhile, the exogenous enlightenment decided that May Forth New Culture Movement would face the tangle of cultural nationality. It also determined that any non-Western culture must confront cultural dimensions of national character Enlightenment in the modern way. This is why the cultural conservatism is not entirely appropriate, but it has profound ideological value. This is a different sense of enlightenment May Fourth New Culture Movement left us. On the other hand, salvation overwhelmed Enlightenment:national position replaced the individual consciousness. The center of the Western Enlightenment, human study, advanced the Enlightenment to human subjectivity level. Meanwhile, May Fourth New Culture Movement of the Enlightenment also noted the personality of the Enlightenment. But because of the survival of the national crisis, there is no access to the same deep level of rationality and freedom to explore the significance of the Enlightenment, just as the Western Enlightenment did. It can only locate science and democracy in such a category. Third, the rational spirit of the Enlightenment shaped the social structure in the West reflected the gradual maturity of civil society. By contrast, China Enlightenment apparently lacks social maturity basis in reality. From a societal perspective, the traditional Chinese family structure and the country’s social structure is not conducive to the formation of civil society. The Chinese civil society has the following characteristics:performance of enlightenment is a cultural awakening; the state plays the main role in the social changes; the development of market economy is still unable to provide a strong secular foundation.Chapter four reflects the May Fourth New Culture Movement in the following two aspects:the arbitrariness of rational enlightenment will inevitably leads to the opposite, which is the paradox of enlightenment; the eternal criticism toward history is the right attitude to treat "the Enlightenment"; early Marxists realize the dual nature of the Enlightenment, and they treat the new culture as a transcendence of both traditional culture and modern culture. It still has an important significance to seek a new road beyond returning to the tradition and ultra-Westernized. Anti-Enlightenment tradition is not the proper meaning of enlightenment. The emergence of non-mainstream thought May Fourth New Culture Movement is a kind protection to the traditional dimensions. May Fourth New Culture Movement is an exogenous enlightenment, and we should learn more ideological nutrients; the scientization of modern Neo-Confucianism and the humanization of Marxist philosophy represent the orientation formed through rational self-reflection and combination of different values, which is the mentality exceeding the May Fourth Enlightenment, and the opportunity to transform the traditional creativity.

文化比較視域下“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)再思考

中文摘要8-12ABSTRACT12-17引論18-33    一、“‘五四’新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)”概念厘定20-21    二、“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)起訖時(shí)限界定21-22    三、研究文獻(xiàn)綜述22-30    四、“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)再思考的意義30-33第一章 “五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)前文化比較思想概述33-47    第一節(jié) 中西學(xué)割裂的“中西之爭(zhēng)”33-37    第二節(jié) “新舊之爭(zhēng)”基礎(chǔ)上的中西會(huì)通論37-38    第三節(jié) 嚴(yán)復(fù)的西化“發(fā)現(xiàn)”范式38-43    第四節(jié) 文化時(shí)代性的凸顯43-47第二章 “五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)與“德”“賽”兩先生47-94    第一節(jié) 東西文化論戰(zhàn)與“德”“賽”兩先生48-57        一、東西文化論戰(zhàn)概述49-53        二、新文化派與文化保守主義者的論戰(zhàn)焦點(diǎn)53-57    第二節(jié) “民主”與“科學(xué)”的泛化57-71        一、“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)中的民主思想及其特點(diǎn)58-63        二、“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)期“科學(xué)”的泛化傾向63-71    第三節(jié) “科玄論戰(zhàn)”及其歷史意蘊(yùn)71-94        一、“科玄論戰(zhàn)”概述71-74        二、科學(xué)派及其科學(xué)主義表現(xiàn)74-79        三、玄學(xué)派對(duì)形而上學(xué)的維護(hù)79-85        四、早期馬克思主義與自由主義的分歧85-94第三章 “五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)與西方啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)異同之比較94-119    第一節(jié) 啟蒙的實(shí)質(zhì)及其在“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)中的表現(xiàn)94-106        一、何謂“啟蒙”?94-102        二、“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)中的啟蒙表現(xiàn)形式102-106    第二節(jié) 中西啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)之異106-110        一、文化傳統(tǒng)的不同106-108        二、“啟蒙”與“傳統(tǒng)”：否定抑或回歸?108-110    第三節(jié) 中國(guó)啟蒙的特殊性110-119        一、啟蒙的外源性與文化民族性維度的凸顯110-113        二、救亡壓倒啟蒙：國(guó)家民族本位取代個(gè)體意識(shí)113-114        三、市民社會(huì)的不成熟114-119第四章 “五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)的啟示119-129    第一節(jié) 啟蒙悖論與“第三條道路”的抉擇119-124        一、啟蒙的悖論119-121        二、啟蒙反思中的“第三條道路”121-124    第二節(jié) 啟蒙中的傳統(tǒng)與傳統(tǒng)的創(chuàng)造性轉(zhuǎn)化124-129        一、反傳統(tǒng)不是啟蒙的應(yīng)有之義124-127        二、傳統(tǒng)的創(chuàng)造性轉(zhuǎn)化的思考127-129參考文獻(xiàn)129-149致謝149-150攻讀博士學(xué)位期間發(fā)表的學(xué)術(shù)論文目錄150-151學(xué)位論文評(píng)閱及答辯情況表151

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：文化比較視域下“五四”新文化運(yùn)動(dòng)再思考，，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。