英文摘要 |
This study of the dispute between Hsu Fu-kuan and other leading thinkers of the 1950s - including Ch'ien Mu and the disciples of Hu Shih - regarding textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness focuses on Hsu Fu-kuan as the central figure. The dispute, which took place largely in Taiwan, can be thought of as an extension of the arguments between proponents of 'Han Studies' and 'Song Studies' in Qing Dynasty China, and of the passionate debates over scientism versus humanism in China in the 1920s. This paper begins by considering the stance taken by Hsu Fu-kuan and the 'Historical Materials' school towards: (1) the definition of textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness; (2) the temporal relationship between textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness; (3) the overall state of the academic spirit and scholarly research methods in China. This paper proceeds to compare the methodologies of Hsu's structural and developmental holism versus Ch'ien Mu's 'convergent holism,' examining how the differences in methodologies related to the dispute on textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness. The final section concludes that there is no single perfect methodology for scholarly research in the humanities. Neither textual criticism nor the doctrine of righteousness should be rejected outright, since 'textual criticism is implied by the doctrine of righteousness, and the doctrine of righteousness is implied by textual criticism.' The dispute over these two approaches can help us develop a clearer picture of scholarly methodologies and their significance. |