【曾海龍】從“斷裂說”與“游魂說”看觀念儒學的甜心寶貝一包養網存續

If the imperial power system is used as the need for Confucianism, then after the imperial power system is interpreted, Confucianism has “got into history”, which seems to be a conclusion that can be accepted. From the perspective of conceptual theory, the existence of Confucianism is a well-established subject. Joseph Levenson’s “Breaking Saying” and Yu Ying-shi’s “Breaking Saying” show this paradox. Their defining of Confucianism’s modern destiny not only revealed that Confucianism had “going into history” but also confirmed that Confucianism had gained its own survival in modern times through the method of conceptualization.

I

Levinson once pointed out that in history, Confucianism and the monarchy were born together, and they were united and applied to each other. By the 20th century, they were connected with each other and declined. Even Liao Ping and Kang Youwei have already had a break with traditional Confucianism and fell into the characteristics of Confucianism. Then, Levinson regarded Liao, Kang and others as anti-traditionalists, and believed that Liao Ping and Kang had finally concluded when they regarded books as prophetics.Their own way of understanding books. “Liao Ping wanted to find the key to open the door of ultimate wisdom from his books; Kang Youwei also wanted to seek wisdom, but later he looked for ‘national priest’, although they died.” [1] Levinson’s test proof: After Liao Ping and Kang Youwei, the river of history in China was drying up. In his opinion, Liao Ping, Kang Youyu and others not only abandoned the history of Confucianism, but also changed the concept of Confucianism, so that topics like the “well-field system” also completely changed its historical meaning and led to the joy of socialism and the path of communism. Therefore, China’s modernization path has no necessary connection with tradition, especially Confucianism, and Confucianism, as “historical”, can only be sent to museums.

It is not difficult to see that Levinson had an advanced framework for the interpretation of modern China, that is, China’s modernization began with the impact of Eastern civilization on Chinese traditions. China’s most basic reason why China cannot achieve independent modernization is that it is difficult to nurture modernity in its own tradition. In other words, traditional China and modern China are not only broken, but also broken. “The first reaction of the 20th century really defeated Confucius, and the precious historical continuity and historical recognition seemed to be cut off and obliterated.” [2] Confucianism’s addition to history means going into history and giving up the future. For China, which embarks on a modern journey, “the river of history is drying up” [3]. After Liao and Kang, Chinese intellectuals gradually accepted and liked communism because the latter provided a wide range of historical concepts. This is a unified logic for Liao Ping, who trusted the blessings of thousands of years and Kang You, to pursue the world. Like Liao and Kang, the progress history of the late Marxist priests in China is also a break from the tradition, but it also provides a clear way to break this break. At the same time, Levinson believed that although Chinese intellectuals recognize the limitations of tradition, they are difficult to accept that China, which has a thousand-year-old tradition, must abide by the modernization path of the East. Therefore, they need to find a form of development that can compete with the Oriental modernization. If China’s modernization cannot be born in tradition and is unwilling to follow Song Weitong’s pace, hesitated for half a minute, put down his suitcase, and followed the sound to find the modernization path that the Oriental industry has been successful, then socialism and communist paths or a certain “well-field system” seem to have become a certain choice.

The Chinese Communists were both anti-feudal and imperialism, and they determined their own adjustment and position between the abandoned Confucianism China and the resisted modern Oriental. From a historical perspective, the anti-traditional May Fourth Movement in 1919 maintained a great tradition. But in the May Fourth Movement, people must separate the counter-reaction thinking from Hu Yang and Cai Yuanpei’s anti-reaction thinking. Because these people are unrestricted intellectuals, their unrestricted and civilized tendencies depend on Europe and the United States, and lack foundation in China. The communist theory was just between the diseased Confucianism and the first setback of Confucianism. 【4】

Levinson explained why China must move towards socialism and communism in modern times. The genius who emerged when facing the pressure of Eastern civilization suffered setbacks when using tradition to resist Eastern civilization was forced to consider tradition as a cumulative one. It is natural to lose this cumulative force to meet the grand preservation pressure formed by modern Eastern civilization and choose a third approach that opposes both tradition and existing modern Eastern civilization. The communist power in Russia was just enough to give Chinese intellectuals a timely call. However, even the most aggressive Chinese Communists who stand on the stage will not fully recognize the Chinese tradition, it is difficult to accept it in mind. Although they strongly opposed tradition in the final drama, they have always established a connection with tradition from the beginning. In other words, communists reject tradition on the one hand, and on the other hand, they are inheriting tradition on the other hand. “The tradition of the people is the past of China that can be interpreted from the head, and the Confucian tradition or self-reliance tradition that has always been the past of China was completely denied and lost.” [5] In Levinson’s view, “The Wellfield System” was resurrected in the 20th century as a metaphor or a social fantasy, and opened up the predecessor of communism’s implementation in China, and just confessed that it no longer had the original connotation of Confucianism. The “well-field system” and the “Teacher Ye in the Contemporary World” that modern literature studies are based on the concept of “Gongyang Biography” and are both rebellions against tradition. Therefore, Kang Youwei’s modern literary theory of traditional Chinese studies, and he is not his belief in the true Confucianism, but his breaking with it. As a resurrection of metaphor and social fantasy, “Midfield Production” is a modern form of differences between “orientalization” chosen by China when facing the pressure of Eastern Europe.

Levinson made a discussion on the relationship between modern China and Chinese traditions, and he could use “split speech” to understand the Nazi integration. Its important connotation is: Traditional China and modern China are a rupture rather than continuous relationship, and modern China is a denial of traditional China. Levinson was wet from the stable pictures of traditional China. I don’t know how long it took to sleep here. In the process of looking dying, he saw the destruction of “modernization” on the tradition. This is undoubtedly based on his own in-depth historical touch. However, because his excessive “form” perspective and the “central European view” he upheld has caused his Chinese discus