There is no distinction between old and new learning.
In his 30-year academic career, Wang Guowei has always advocated eclectic academic achievements. When dealing with ancient and modern knowledge, he thinks that "new" is to study current problems, and "old" is to study historical problems. The two have different starting points and different understandings. Proceeding from reality, "although sages don't believe their words, they don't care about their actions." From a historical point of view, "because it existed in ancient times, its fruit came from the side, and the materials were sufficient for reference, so I dare not abandon it." At the same time, Wang Guowei also said: "Subject scholars must wait for historical materials, and those who study history may have no scientific knowledge." Wang Guowei particularly emphasized the value of historiography, and thought that whether learning practical learning or ancient history classics, we should pay attention to the complementarity and reference of ancient and modern knowledge.
There is no distinction between old and new in Manabu Nakanishi, only right and wrong.
Under the social background of fierce confrontation between China's traditional knowledge and foreign western theories, Wang Guowei expressed his unique view of knowledge. He said: "Today's scholars have disputes between the old and the new, between China and the West, between useful learning and useless learning. JUNG WOO told the world that learning is neither old nor new, neither China nor the West, nor useful or useless. Anyone who has this name is a person who doesn't learn, but doesn't know how to learn. " Wang Guowei advocates that there is no distinction between old and new knowledge in China and the West, only right and wrong, and puts forward the view that knowledge has no national boundaries. He said: "In today's world, no one can prosper from western learning, and no one can prosper from western learning." In his view, Manabu Nakanishi is interrelated and promotes each other. The development of middle schools can not be separated from the promotion of western learning, which is also inspired by middle schools and advocates the integration of ancient and modern Chinese and western.
The distinction between right and wrong in history did not come from abroad in modern times, but from ancient times.
China scholars have long questioned ancient books and history, and the germination of ancient doubts can be traced back to the Spring and Autumn Period. At that time, Zi Gong, one of the top ten philosophers of Confucius, said, "It is better to be poor than to be poor." It is based on the fact that a gentleman's evil lives in filth, and all the evil in the world will return. "This means that Shang Zhouwang is not necessarily as cruel as described in ancient history, but that later generations blame Zhou Wang for all the evils in the world. 100 years later, Han Fei discovered that many branches of Confucianism and Mohism claimed to have The True Story of Confucius and Mohism, and Confucius and Mohism also claimed that their theories originated from Yao and Shun. Han Fei questioned this: "After Confucius and Mohism, Confucianism was divided into eight, and Mohism was divided into three. The choices were different, but they all claimed to be true. Confucius and Mohism cannot be resurrected. Who will create the world? "Confucius and Mozi both advocate Yao and Shun, but they have different choices. They all claim to be true Yao and Shun, and Yao and Shun will not be resurrected. Who will make Confucianism sincere? " If someone ignores the authenticity of history and blindly believes in the self-promotion of a certain faction without making textual research, it can only be called "a person who has no experience and will be necessary, and it is also stupid." People who do what they can will be falsely accused. So obviously, according to the late king, he must be Yao and Shun, either stupid or fake. Foolish and slander learning, miscellaneous and contrary, the wise master is also subject to it. Han Fei opposed a hundred schools of thought and doubted their Togo theory. About 100 years passed, and Liu An, king of Huainan in the Western Han Dynasty, and his guests further pointed out: "The name of three generations is also called Chitose. Embarrassment and embarrassment are also destroyed by the accumulation of Chitose. " This means that Yu, Tang, and the so-called holy kings and wise teachers who were pushed to the altar by Confucianism are not necessarily so sacred, but are likely to be whitewashed by the "reputation of chitose"; The so-called tyrants such as Xia Jie and Shang Zhou are not necessarily as cruel as described in the book, but are vilified because of "the product of chitose".
In addition to questioning the ancient history, Liu An and his guests also revealed the psychology of later generations' falsification and an important reason for the appearance of false history and false books, that is, "the secular people respect the ancient times and despise the present, and the Taoist must entrust Shennong and Huangdi before they can enter the story." The dark Lord in troubled times is far from what he has always done, so it is expensive. For scholars, they respect what they see and hear. They call it sitting in danger. They are leading and chanting. This is not clear. "Therefore," if you take the book of the new sage, the name of Confucius and Ink, the disciples refer to it and receive countless people. "
Sima Qian discovered a suspicious phenomenon when he was writing historical records. There were no records of three emperors and five emperors in the Yin and Shang Dynasties, but more after the Western Zhou Dynasty. In addition, "Confucius wrote Chunqiu because of its history, the year of the times, the year of the sun and the moon, and the details. As for the preface of Shangshu, it is omitted and has no date; Or quite, but it can be missed and cannot be recorded. " The Spring and Autumn Annals was written by Confucius, so the date and month are recorded in detail, because there are historical documents for reference. However, if Shangshu has no basis, there will be no exact time, and we can only adopt a cautious attitude of "doubt will spread". Sima Qian followed the principle of faithfulness and history by comparing Confucius' Chunqiu and Shangshu, and got inspiration from it. When compiling historical records, Sima Qian tried to find more credible historical truth on the basis of credible classics, ancient legends or historical sites through comparative textual research, and tried his best to "dispel doubts and cover them carefully".
The thought of doubting the ancient times has been continuously carried forward in the development of historiography for more than two thousand years. At the same time, the contradiction and sluggishness of the old historiography accelerated the new generation of scholars to boldly doubt the past and open up new ones. Encouraged by the May 4th Movement and the scientific concept, a group of scholars headed by Gu Jiegang finally broke through the barriers of traditional historiography and set off a trend of suspicion of the ancient times.
New Evidence and Doubting the Ancient —— Similarities and differences between Wang Guowei and Gu Jiegang's historiography
Wang Guowei's New Proof of Ancient History and Gu Jiegang's Discrimination of Ancient History are two works that have great influence on the study of ancient history in the 1920s. There are many similarities between Wang Guowei and Gu Jiegang in the treatment of ancient history. On the basis of inheriting China's academic tradition, they all absorbed western academic thoughts and methods. However, Wang Guowei mainly inherited the use of physical historical materials by traditional historiography, while Gu Jiegang inherited the spirit and achievements of traditional historiography.
The combination of Chinese and western research methods has enabled Wang Guowei and Gu Jiegang to broaden their horizons, hold an objective attitude, do not believe in ancient classics, and only take science as the criterion. Both of them have discovered that there are many unreliable subjective existence in China's ancient historical materials, which is the legend. Gu Jiegang particularly emphasized the persistence of skepticism, and he should not blindly follow the conclusions that have been drawn. Everything can only be sure after textual research.
The main difference between Wang Guowei and Gu Jiegang in the study of ancient history lies in the different methods used. Wang Guowei studied ancient history with "double evidence law", while Gu Jiegang, relying on "historical evolution theory", focused on the evolution of ancient history legends, and studied how ancient history was modified and forged by looking for differences in literature records, thus exposing the false components of ancient history. Gu Jiegang's research methods can be summarized as follows:
First, arrange the legends of historical events in the order in which they appear.
Second, study the different legends of this historical event in different times.
Thirdly, study how the legend of this historical event evolved, such as: from simple to complex, from vulgar to elegant, from local to national, from god to man, from myth to historical event, from legend to fact.
Fourth, if possible, explain the reasons for each evolution.
The fierce attack of ancient skeptics on traditional historiography destroyed the old ancient historiography system and set off a revolution in the ideological and academic circles. For example, Gu Jiegang himself said: "My work of" Distinguishing Ancient History "is a complete destruction of feudalism. I want to make ancient books only ancient books without modern knowledge, ancient history only ancient history without modern politics and ethics, and the ancients only ancient people without the authority of modern thought. In other words, I want to sort out the feudal classic of religion-'Jing' and send it to the feudal museum to strip it of its dignity, and then the old ideas can't continue in the new era. "
The reason why Wang Guowei and Gu Jiegang adopt different methods in the history of governance is because they use different historical materials. The "double evidence law" focuses on the application of physical materials, while the "historical evolution law" focuses more on the application of ancient books. Later, with more and more cultural relics unearthed, more and more scholars began to re-evaluate the value of China's ancient civilization, and our country's archaeology finally came out of the age of doubting ancient times.