Home >
The essay is aimed at investigating the formation and disappearance of public sphere by studying the evolution in the meaning of the terms “qun” (community), “shehui” (society), and “shehuizhuyi” (socialism) in modern Chinese history. In traditional Chinese society, public sphere failed to come into existence though village autonomy did exist below the county level where the gentry had dominance. In late nineteenth century, under the impact of the west, “qun” emerged out of various traditional political terms and became a guiding principle of the society. This phenomenon was closely related to the fact that some intellectuals used “Jinwen Jingxue” (the Modern Text Shool of Confucian classics) as a guideline for the 1898 Reform Movement. As the notion of reform was superseded by that of revolution, “shehui” took the place of “qun” and became the equivalent of the western term “society”. This marked the debut of public sphere in modern Chinese history. And the subsequent rise of socialism could be seen as the subordination of private realm to public realm. This heralded the expansion of state power and the intensification of bureaucratization in Chinese society in early twentieth century. In this essay, we not only make use of the analytical method(s) of intellectual history but also draw on the study of linguistics. By employing quantitative analysis as our research method, we hope that this study can throw a new light on the formation of modern Chinese political concepts.
在閱讀許多人評論張氏的文字中常常看到本題目所指的稱謂,而在閱讀張氏自己的著作中卻常常看到他自己的澄清,甚或否認自己是「唯心論者」。因此我們就有了一個他人評價和自評的差距。本文就是針對這個差距而來,主要的目的是澄清個中問題,並就所涉及的意義稍加討論。
中文裡的「唯心主義」一語常用來翻譯英語“idea-ism=idealism”和 “ideal-ism”。但嚴格講來,在中文裡還有三個詞都可用來指稱 “idea-ism=idealism”和 “ideal-ism”,即(1)「唯心論」;(2)「觀念論」;(3)「理想主義」。此外,張本人也曾用「意象論」來譯“idea-ism=idealism”。就張而言,用「意象論」、「唯心論」或「觀念論」來譯認識論上的“idea-ism=idealism”是不錯的;但用「意象論」、唯心論」或「觀念論」來譯本體論、宇宙論上的“idea-ism=idealism”和“ideal-ism”,則比不上「理想主義」好。
關於張東蓀是甚麼意義下的「唯心主義者」或「新唯心主義者」,大致有三大類別:(1)馬列或左派學者以及其附和者所用的「反動的」「唯心主義者」或「反動的」「新唯心主義者」稱謂;(2)非馬列或非左派學者所用的沒有「反動的」之類形容詞的「唯心主義者」或「新唯心主義者」稱謂;(3)張東蓀自己對「唯心主義者」或「新唯心主義者」稱謂的判別。無疑的,(3)最重要,不但是因為它最權威,同時以前也沒有人如此注意到它是評價張東蓀是何意義下的「唯心主義者」或「新唯心主義者」的關鍵。
張東蓀在認識論上的「多元主義」和「交互主義」是使他不可能是馬、列派所指稱的「唯心論者」最根本且最具體的理由。我們也看到張之不願領受「唯心主義者」,除了哲學上(尤其是認識論)的考慮外,也有社會和政治的考慮。雖然張不是柏拉圖主義者,他卻可因其承認思想中之有先天成分而毫無困難地被看成是個「康德主義者」。同時,他也確是個「理想主義者」,因為他一向強調觀念或理想在文化上之極端重要性。
張東蓀不是一般意義的「唯心論者」,最重要的認識論上的原因必須從他純哲學或純學術的態度去理解,唯有從這個角度出發才能明白導致他最終成為綜合論者的內在力量。總之,若一定要用「唯心主義者」的稱謂於張身上,則最可能的地方是他的認識論,因為他承認是站在「唯心主義的立腳點」上。以此觀之,最明顯的一點,是他絕不可能是馬克思派的「唯物論者」或「辯證唯物論者」,雖然他在政治、社會、經濟領域的思想有某種他所理解的「唯物論」色彩。
張東蓀基本上可說是多元理想主義的綜合論者,或更正確地說,張東蓀既是理想主義者、也是多元論者、更是綜合論者。雖然他有些強烈唯心論的傾向,而被許多非馬列派學者和所有馬列派學者看成是唯心主義者或新唯心主義者。張東蓀之所以有唯心主義者或新唯心主義的傾向,是因為他對唯心主義或新唯心主義有深刻的了解,而他不是唯心主義者或新唯心主義者,也是因為他對唯心主義者或新唯心主義者或新唯心主義的了解,才使他不能成為全面的唯心主義者或新唯心主義者。
哲學爭論雖是言詞之爭,但卻涉及基本價值判斷,因為所有指涉的對象是抽象的,在外在的、客觀的指涉不易確定時,最容易以立場、價值判斷取代追索對象的本相。張東蓀也曾多次澄清自己不領受「唯心主義者」的頭銜。若我們仍要繼續以「唯心主義者」稱呼他,則我們至少得留意他之所以不願如此自居的苦心孤詣。
Parliamentary system of the West was introduced into China since the late imperial Qing Dynasty. There were four times the Chinese tried to organize their own national assemblies before the Communists took-over in 1949: 1910, 1913, 1917, and 1947-l948. This author had completed the study of the first three elections of these assemblies. This paper follows it up by studying the last election, the National Assembly of the KMT period in 1947-1948. Attention is paid to citizenship census, candidate nomination, competition, voting, and the result of election. The author concluded that the election was a failure because it was mainly controlled by the KMT, the party in power. Very few citizens really cast their ballots, and corruption was widespread in the provinces. Those who were elected as parliamentarians were mainly the traditional land-holding elites, many of them had received new styled education, a fact that was especially applicable to those returned students from abroad. Because of the need of a better civil society and a more developed economy, the transplantation of democracy into China has faced difficulties yet to be overcome.
Chi-an Prefecture had been the most prominent area for the Yang-ming chiang-hui (learning and discussing meetings) since the 1510s. This article mainly studies the history of the Yang-ming chiang-hui in Chi-an Prefecture during the post-Wang Yang-ming era (from 1528AD), especially in the five representative districts of An-fu, Lu-ling, Chi-shui, Yung-feng, and T’ai-ho. During this period, the Yang-ming chiang-hui in Chi-an experienced two waves of prosperity: one was in the 1530s and 1540s, the leading scholars were Tsou Shou-i, Lo Hung-hsien, Nieh Pao, and Ou-yang Te; the other in the 1570s and advocated by Tsou Te-han, Wang Shih-huai, Liu Yuan-ch’ing, Hu Chih, and Kuo Ju-lin.
In addition to dealing with the general development of the Yang-ming chiang-hui in each district, this article also touches upon some influential factors, including the relationship between the chiang-hui history and scholars’ life experiences, the civil service examinations, and the changing identity of scholars in the late Ming.
In an area with highly cultural competency like Chi-an, intellectual activities required more visible achievements to be recorded in local histories. The characteristics and limitations of written texts have also to be taken into account. As there are indications showing every possible existence of some or many local chiang-hui without written records and thus strongly reminding us of the limitations of historical materials on which we have to rely in dealing with the matter.