本文選題：“天下興亡 + 匹夫有責(zé)”　； 參考：《海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版)》2017年01期

【摘要】：梁啟超將顧炎武"亡國"與"亡天下"的論述概括為"天下興亡,匹夫有責(zé)",但其含義已與顧氏原義有了很大差別。顧炎武的原義實質(zhì)上是政治哲學(xué)問題,強調(diào)士大夫(知識分子)的理論關(guān)切的具體內(nèi)容和處世行為的政治社會意義,由此反對士大夫?qū)Ψ鹄稀⑿䦟W(xué)、心學(xué)甚至理學(xué)的理論喜好和士大夫處世的自由言行。梁啟超則將國家振興之希望,寄托于士大夫之自我社會意識的覺醒和才能道德水平之提升,強調(diào)士大夫的社會擔(dān)當(dāng)職責(zé)。造成兩者差異之原因在于梁啟超的心學(xué)和現(xiàn)代啟蒙思想背景,而顧炎武則基于中國傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)學(xué)的現(xiàn)實關(guān)切和理論品格。今天,思考兩者的差異仍具有重要的理論與現(xiàn)實意義。
[Abstract]:Liang Qichao generalizes Gu Yanwu's exposition of "subjugation" and "subjugation of the world" as "rise and fall in the world, with equal responsibility", but its meaning is quite different from Gu's original meaning. Gu Yanwu's original meaning is essentially a matter of political philosophy, emphasizing the specific contents of the theoretical concerns of literati (intellectuals) and the political and social significance of his behavior in dealing with the world. The theoretical preference of psychology and even Neo-Confucianism and the free words and deeds of literati and officials in the world. Liang Qichao placed the hope of national rejuvenation on the awakening of self-social consciousness and the promotion of talent and morality of the literati and officials, and emphasized the social responsibility of the literati and bureaucrats. The reason for the difference lies in Liang Qichao's background of mind learning and modern enlightenment, while Gu Yanwu is based on the practical concern and theoretical character of Chinese traditional classics. Today, thinking about the difference between the two still has important theoretical and practical significance.
【作者單位】： 貴州大學(xué)哲學(xué)與社會發(fā)展學(xué)院;
【基金】：國家社科基金特別委托項目(14@ZH054) 2015年度貴州省教育廳人文社科基地項目(2015JD005)
【分類號】：D092
，

本文編號：1830283