五四“传统文化批判”的历史经验
摘要
五四启蒙运动开展的"传统文化批判",极大地冲击了旧文化,传播了现代文化。但是,由于历史的仓促和理论的薄弱,它没有抓住恩德这个核心,对中国文化的定性不准。它以"迷信""专制"定性中国传统文化,一方面对其不平等性、控制性进行了合理的批判,另一方面也抹杀了其人文性,导致对传统文化的全盘否定。这种片面性的文化批判的不良后果,是传统文化的恶的方面即恩德的不平等性、控制性没有真正被改造,并且变相的存在和发挥负面作用;同时其优良传统即其仁爱的合理一面也没有得到肯定和继承。应该汲取这一历史经验,揭示传统文化的恩德本质及其两重性,加以批判地继承,把恩德文化转化为现代文化,以充分地实现文化转型。
The critique of traditional culture during the May 4 th Movement has contributed to the spread of modern culture with its negation of traditions. However, due to the hastiness and weakness in the preparation of such critique, it has missed the core of traditional culture, i.e. "grace" and "virtue." Instead, the critique marked Chinese traditional culture as "superstition" and "autocracy." It criticized the inequality and compulsivity reasonably, but it also obliterated the humanity of Chinese traditional culture, leading to a total negation of traditional culture. The negative consequence of this one-sided cultural critique is that the evil aspect of traditional culture, namely the inequality and compulsivity of "grace" and "virtue," were never transformed, and the existence and negative effects of disguise. Meanwhile, its rational side, i.e. "kindness" and "care," were not inherited. This historical lesson should be learned, as it revealed the duality of the traditions. The nature of "grace" and "virtue" should be inherited critically so as to be transformed into a part of modern culture.
The critique of traditional culture during the May 4 th Movement has contributed to the spread of modern culture with its negation of traditions. However, due to the hastiness and weakness in the preparation of such critique, it has missed the core of traditional culture, i.e. "grace" and "virtue." Instead, the critique marked Chinese traditional culture as "superstition" and "autocracy." It criticized the inequality and compulsivity reasonably, but it also obliterated the humanity of Chinese traditional culture, leading to a total negation of traditional culture. The negative consequence of this one-sided cultural critique is that the evil aspect of traditional culture, namely the inequality and compulsivity of "grace" and "virtue," were never transformed, and the existence and negative effects of disguise. Meanwhile, its rational side, i.e. "kindness" and "care," were not inherited. This historical lesson should be learned, as it revealed the duality of the traditions. The nature of "grace" and "virtue" should be inherited critically so as to be transformed into a part of modern culture.
引文
(1)杨春时:《两个五四:现代性与现代民族国家的冲突》,《上海文化》2015年第2期。
(1)《陈独秀文章选编》上册,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1984年,第80-81页。
(1)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,上海:上海远东出版社,1994年,第89页。
(2)吴虞:《辩孟子辟杨、墨之非》,转引自陈万雄:《中国新文化的源流》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997年,第125页。
(3)罗家伦:《批评的研究》,《新潮》第2卷第3号,1920年4月。
(1)杨春时:《中国恩情文化批判》,《东南学术》2014年第1期。
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)张汝伦编选:《文化融合与道德教化--蔡元培文选》,上海:上海远东出版社,1994年,第168、175、176-177、162、200页。
(1)林纾:《致蔡元培书》,《公言报》1919年3月18日。
(2)蔡元培:《致〈公言报〉函并答林琴南函》,转引自周策纵:《五四运动史》,长沙:岳麓书社,1999年,第96页。
(3)吴虞:《吴虞文录》卷上,合肥:黄山书社,2009年,第19-23页。
(4)(5)鲁迅:《我们现在怎样做父亲》,《新青年》第6卷第6号,1919年11月1日。
(1)哈迎飞:《半是儒家半释家--周作人思想研究》,北京:人民文学出版社,2007年,第326页。
(2)林毓生:《中国意识的危机--五四时期激烈的反传统主义》,贵阳:贵州人民出版社,1988年,第122页。
(3)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,第121页。
(1)(2)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,第60、59页。
(3)周作人:《托尔斯泰的事情》,《语丝》1925年第14期。
(1)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,第138页。
(1)《陈独秀文章选编》上册,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1984年,第80-81页。
(1)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,上海:上海远东出版社,1994年,第89页。
(2)吴虞:《辩孟子辟杨、墨之非》,转引自陈万雄:《中国新文化的源流》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997年,第125页。
(3)罗家伦:《批评的研究》,《新潮》第2卷第3号,1920年4月。
(1)杨春时:《中国恩情文化批判》,《东南学术》2014年第1期。
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)张汝伦编选:《文化融合与道德教化--蔡元培文选》,上海:上海远东出版社,1994年,第168、175、176-177、162、200页。
(1)林纾:《致蔡元培书》,《公言报》1919年3月18日。
(2)蔡元培:《致〈公言报〉函并答林琴南函》,转引自周策纵:《五四运动史》,长沙:岳麓书社,1999年,第96页。
(3)吴虞:《吴虞文录》卷上,合肥:黄山书社,2009年,第19-23页。
(4)(5)鲁迅:《我们现在怎样做父亲》,《新青年》第6卷第6号,1919年11月1日。
(1)哈迎飞:《半是儒家半释家--周作人思想研究》,北京:人民文学出版社,2007年,第326页。
(2)林毓生:《中国意识的危机--五四时期激烈的反传统主义》,贵阳:贵州人民出版社,1988年,第122页。
(3)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,第121页。
(1)(2)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,第60、59页。
(3)周作人:《托尔斯泰的事情》,《语丝》1925年第14期。
(1)吴晓明编选:《德赛二先生与社会主义--陈独秀文选》,第138页。