论文部分内容阅读
对马克思主义和中华传统文化的关系主要存在着三种阐释范式。意识形态范式把马克思主义看作无产阶级的理论学说,把中华传统文化视为地主阶级的思想体系。这种范式从文化与经济、政治的关系入手认知文化,看到了文化和意识形态的内在联系,但忽视了意识形态的独立性和文化的继承性,忽略了意识形态和文化的区别。文明范式把马克思主义和中华传统文化分别归于西方文明和中华文明这两种不同性质的文明。这种范式突出了中华传统文化的不可替代性,但又往往过于强调中华传统文化的本位性而拒斥马克思主义。体用范式沿用了中国哲学史上的“体”、“用”概念,提出了“中体西用”、“西体中用”或“马魂中体西用”等不同主张。这种范式最具中国特色,但由于对“体”、“用”的不同理解和阐发,难以形成共识,容易导致文化独断主义。在马克思主义和中华传统文化的关系上,一方面要坚持对中国马克思主义的文化自信和自觉,另一方面还要探寻更具阐释力和适应性的阐释范式。
There are mainly three interpretations of the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture. The ideological paradigm takes Marxism as the theoretical theory of the proletariat and the traditional Chinese culture as the ideological system of the landlord class. This kind of paradigm starts from the relationship between culture and economy and politics and starts with the cognitive culture. It sees the internal connection between culture and ideology. However, it ignores the independence of ideology and the inheritance of culture and neglects the distinction between ideology and culture. Civilization paradigm divides Marxism and Chinese traditional culture into two different civilizations: Western civilization and Chinese civilization. This paradigm highlights the irreplaceability of Chinese traditional culture, but often overemphasizes the nature of Chinese traditional culture and rejects Marxism. The body uses the concept of “body” and “use” in the history of Chinese philosophy, and proposes the concept of “using body” and “using body” in the history of Chinese philosophy. “And other different ideas. This paradigm has the most Chinese characteristics, but due to the different comprehension and elucidation of ”body “ and ”use ", it is difficult to form a consensus and easily lead to cultural independence. In the relations between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture, on the one hand, we must uphold the cultural self-confidence and self-awareness of Chinese Marxism, on the other hand, we should also explore a more interpretative and adaptable interpretation paradigm.