论文部分内容阅读
“历史”一词的本义，本是历史学家耳熟能详的史学常识。故而，我也不打算对这个常识多加考辨。我的目的是：从中西方文化对“历史”一词的最早定义和解释入手，去探究和梳理中西方史学精神的基本差异。但这并不是说，史学精神是这种定义的产物，而是说，对“历史”的定义仅仅是史学精神的一般表现和我们理解史学精神的切入点。不过，在这里必须事先说明三点：第一，中西方史学精神是一个很大的话题，区区一篇文章很难讲得清楚，我的目的只是想把我自认为最重要的一方面说清说透，而不是把每一方面都从头到尾面面俱到地进行论述或重申。第二，西方史学源远流长，自成体系，但我却只能把范围和目标限定于古希腊史学。第三，中国史学肯定有它的长处，但在大多数时候，这些长处均难以得到正常发挥，甚至使长处变成了短处。而古希腊史学所具有的特质又恰恰为中国史学所缺乏。这样，借其之长补我之短．不失为解决问题的有效策略。
The original meaning of the word “history” is historically common sense historians know. Therefore, I do not intend to test this common sense. My purpose is to start with the earliest definitions and interpretations of the word “history” by the Chinese and Western cultures, and to explore and sort out the basic differences between Chinese and Western historiography. This does not mean, however, that the historical spirit is the product of this definition, but rather that the definition of “history” is merely the general expression of the historical spirit and the entry point into which we understand the spirit of history. However, three points must be stated here in advance. First, the historical spirit of China and the West is a very big topic. It is hard to make clear what an article in the area is. My purpose is simply to clarify what I consider to be the most important one Rather than discussing or reaffirming everything from start to finish. Second, western historiography dates back to ancient times and is a natural system, but I can only limit its scope and objectives to ancient Greek historiography. Third, historiography in China certainly has its strengths. However, most of these strengths can hardly be brought into full play and even turn strengths into shortcomings. The characteristics of ancient Greek historiography are precisely the lack of Chinese history. In this way, by the merit of my short. After all, an effective strategy to solve the problem.