本书的论述照例带有欧美学院派著作的暧昧与晦涩,但它提出的问题却相当重要,那就是历史悠久的中华文明究竟是否具有自我改良的内在机制,而在现代性语境中陷入焦灼的中国知识分子又是怎样设置文化复兴的大目标?作者以周作人作为一个“另类”范本,阐述现代性话语建构的一个历史插曲。显然,晚明心性之学被视为周作人式基于个人情感的人道主义与自由主义的思想来源,书中认为,周作人通过使用传统美学范畴的自我表达是一种具有现代性的主体认同,也是针对被“民族国家”所宰制的现代性的回应。这里触及到一个更为深远的问题:宋明理学的内在分裂究竟意味着儒学复 The book’s exposition usually carries the ambiguous and obscure writings of European and American academics. However, the question it raises is quite important. It is whether or not the long history of Chinese civilization has the inherent mechanism of self-improvement, and it is in anxiety in the context of modernity How Chinese intellectuals set the great goal of cultural rejuvenation? The author uses Zhou Zuoren as a model of “alternative” to elaborate a historical episode of the construction of modernity discourse. Obviously, the study of late Ming dynasty psychology was regarded as Zhou Zuoren’s humanitarian and liberal ideological source based on personal emotions. According to the book, Zhou Zuoren’s self-expression through the use of traditional aesthetics category is a subject identity with modernity. It is also a response to the modernity dominated by the “nation state.” Here comes a more far-reaching question: Does the internal division of Neo-Confucianism mean Confucianism complex