论文部分内容阅读
清代考据学者以客观化解经方法论著称,近代以来备受中国学术界的推崇,近十年来却屡有学者套用“诠释学循环”的原理加以质疑,指责戴震、焦循对《孟子》等经典的误读,正是由其从部分到整体的“单向”方法论导致的,并援方东树为同调。其实方法论的片面不会阻断本体论上的循环,且“以训诂明义理”并不宜用抽象的“诠释学循环”来把握,清代考据学只属科学诠释学的前史,与宋学同样具有经学突出的主观性,影响了客观方法论的贯彻。错误的诠释并不适合作哲学反思。
The Qing Dynasty textual research scholars are known for their objective solution to the methodology. Since the modern times, they have been highly respected by the Chinese academic circles. In the past ten years, scholars have repeatedly questioned the application of the theory of “hermeneutical circle”, accusing Dai Zhen and Jiao Xun of “Mencius” Other classic misunderstandings are caused by their “one-way” methodology from the part to the whole, and the aid to the east tree is the same tune. In fact, the one-sided methodology does not block the ontology cycle, and it is not appropriate to use the abstract “hermeneutical circle ” to grasp the theory that the Qing dynasty textual criticism is only the prehistory of the scientific hermeneutics , Also has the prominent subjectivity of Confucian classics as Song studies, affecting the implementation of objective methodology. The wrong interpretation is not suitable for philosophical reflection.