近年来的中国哲学界,理学研究繁盛异常,出现了一些颇有学术深度的论著。翻阅这些著作,常常会得到许多有益的启发,但有时也会增加一些新的困惑。其中给我最突出的负面印象是:这些论著强调了理学思潮的独立性,这有其合理性,但却忽视了理学作为一种社会思潮的延续性。我手头近年出版的讲理学专著,有的从“宋初三先生”讲起,有的从周敦颐讲起,有的从朱熹讲起,总之都从宋代讲起。理学是怎样产生的,它是古代何种思潮运动发展的结果,都没有作出详尽的交待,因而使人无法看清这一巨大思潮历史演变的明晰脉络。所以出现这样的现象,可能同断代思想史有关,但我认为根本的原因是,作者们忽略了理学也是儒学这个特点。这样说,也许会有人感到不公平,因为这些书中也常常提到理学是一种“新儒学”, In recent years, the Chinese philosophical circle has witnessed thriving research in science and there have been quite a few academic depth works. Read through these works, often get a lot of useful inspiration, but sometimes also add some new puzzles. Among them, the most prominent negative impression to me is that these treatises emphasize the independence of Neo-Confucianism, which is reasonable but neglects the continuity of Neo-Confucianism as a social trend of thought. In recent years, I published in mythical monographs, some from the “Mr. Song early” talked about, and some talked about from Zhou Denyi, and some talked about from Zhu Xi, in short, all talked about from the Song Dynasty. How Neo-Confucianism came into being was the result of the development of what kind of ideological movement in ancient China. Neither did it make an exhaustive account, which made it impossible to see the clear context of the historical evolution of this huge trend of thought. So this phenomenon may be related to the history of the thought of the Chronicles, but I think the fundamental reason is that the authors ignore the reason that Confucianism is also a feature of Confucianism. It may be unfair to say this, because in these books it is often mentioned that Neo-Confucianism is a “neo-Confucianism”