论文部分内容阅读
津田左右吉(1873-1961)是近代日本具有代表性的历史学者、思想史学者。作为对津田史学予以批判超越的必要工作之一,应从多角度讨论津田的中国思想史研究中存在的反“亚洲主义”或“亚洲并非一体”的主张。其主张虽以“包括印度、中国,甚至包括日本之意义上的东洋文化,理应不存在”的形式表现出来,实际上是有体系的、具备复杂内容和结构的思想。就是说,津田“亚洲并非一体”的主张之思想基础,在于对战前“亚洲主义”、“大东亚共荣圈”的批判,对战后新的“亚洲一体”思想和运动,即对亚洲社会主义之期待的危机感。这种批判和危机感的背后,反映出津田关于同时代东方各地区(亚洲、东洋)文化、社会停滞的认识,津田还视“亚洲”、“东洋”概念自身为儒教式权势主义而加以批判。津田进而认为,思想、文化一般说来是植根于民众“生活”的具体的特殊的东西,从此角度出发,对徒有其名的“亚洲”、“东洋”概念作出了否定。最后津田将历史学规定为重视具体性特殊性的学问,反对概念化与法则化,对以抽象化为本质的哲学持冷淡的态度。
Tsuda about Kyrgyzstan (1873-1961) is a representative of Japan’s modern history scholars, historians of ideas. As one of the necessary tasks for criticizing Tsuda’s history beyond criticism, we should discuss Tsuda’s propositions of “anti-Asianism” or “Asia’s not integrality” in the study of Chinese intellectual history from multiple perspectives. Although its proposition is shown in the form of “including the oriental culture in India, China and even Japan, it does not even exist”, it is actually a system of ideas with complex contents and structures. That is to say, the ideological foundation of Tsuda’s claim that “Asia is not one” lies in the critique of the pre-war “Asianism ” and the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Circle ”, and of the postwar new “Asian One And movement, the sense of crisis toward the expectations of Asian socialism. Behind this criticism and sense of crisis, Tsuda reflects the understanding of Tsuda about the culture and social stagnation in the various regions of the East (Asia and the East). Tsuda also considers the notion of ”Asia“ and ”Toyo“ as the Confucian power Criticism Tsuda further argues that ideology and culture are generally specific things that are rooted in the ”life“ of the people. From this perspective, we make the notion of ”Asia“ and ”Toyo" conceptually Negation. In the end, Tsuda delineated historiography as a knowledge that emphasizes particularity and particularity, opposes conceptualization and regularization, and holds a cold attitude toward philosophy based on abstraction.