摘要
郭沫若、侯外庐在1940年代运用马克思主义研究墨学,却分别以“天志”“尚贤”作为其核心思想进行诠释。郭沫若认为,墨子代表“王公大人”的立场,是反动、反人类和不科学的;侯外庐则认为,墨子代表觉醒的“国民人类”利益,侧重从知识论、人类观、民主观、天道观发掘其合理成分。两人都以马克思主义为指导,从社会史视角进行研究,结果却得出迥异结论,可谓“同途殊归”。究其原因,主要在于他们对马克思主义的具体理解和运用不同。
Guo Moruo and Hou Wailu used Marxism to study Mohism in the 1940s,but took“Divine Wil”and“Respected Sages”as their core ideas to interpret.Guo Moruo thought that Mozi represented the position of“The Nobility”,was reactionary,anti-human and unscientific;Hou Wailu thought that Mozi represented the awakening of the interests of“National Human Beings”,and focused on exploring its rational elements from the perspectives of epistemology,human view,democratic view and tiandaoism.They studied Mohism under the guidance of marxism but came to different conclusions.The reasons mainly lied in their different understanding and application of marxism.
作者
徐国利
陈晨
XU Guo-li;CHEN Chen(School of Humanities,Shanghai University of Finance and Economics,Shanghai 200433,China;School of Marxism,Shanghai University of Finance and Economics,Shanghai 200433,China)
出处
《河北学刊》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第6期61-67,共7页
Hebei Academic Journal
基金
2012年度国家社会科学基金一般项目“多维视角下传统史学与中国现代新史学关系研究”(12BZS002)
2018年度上海财经大学研究生创新计划项目科研创新基金“马克思主义史学五大家论中国科学与民主思想传统”(2018110360)。
关键词
郭沫若
侯外庐
墨学
马克思主义
同途殊归
Guo Mo-ruo
Hou Wai-lu
Mohism
Marxism
Same Way but Different Conclusions
