论文部分内容阅读
根据传统的知识论,历史认识性质的基本规定是客观性或客观的真理性。改革开放以来,理论历史学界关于历史认识客观性问题的研究,对于“历史认识客观性的内涵是什么?”的回答,或认为是符合性,或认为是真实性,或认为是平等性。客观性究竟是历史认识性质的基本规定,还是历史学的基本原则,学者们的认识极为不同。歧见最大的是如何看待历史认识活动过程中主观性或主观因素的作用以及它与客观性的关系。新时期关于历史认识客观性问题的讨论,其根本性缺陷在于:迷信自然科学认识的客观性,混淆“历史认识的客观性”与“历史认识作用的客观性”两个内涵与性质不同的问题。从历史认识论科学(认识论历史哲学)的健康发展来说,应该用“历史认识现实性”取代“历史认识客观性”范畴,并在此前提下去深入探讨“历史认识现实性”在不同类别或不同表现形态的历史认识中具体的现实内容。
According to the traditional epistemology, the basic stipulation of the nature of historical cognition is objectivity or objective truth. Since the reform and opening up, the study of the objectivity of historical understanding by theoretical historians has been the answer to the question of “what is the connotation of the objectivity of historical understanding?” Or is it considered as conformity, or considered to be true or equal? . Whether objectivity is the basic stipulation of the nature of history recognition or the basic principle of history is that scholars have very different understandings. What is most disagreeing is the role of subjectivity or subjective factors in the process of historical awareness and its relation to objectivity. The fundamental flaw in the discussion of the objectivity of historical understanding in the new period lies in the objectivity of confusion in the understanding of natural sciences, the objectivity of historical understanding and the objectivity of historical cognition, Different nature of the issue. From the perspective of the healthy development of history epistemology science (epistemological history philosophy), we should replace the category of “historical objectivity” with “the reality of historical knowledge ”, and on this premise we should further explore “the reality of historical understanding ”The specific realities in the historical understanding of different categories or manifestations.