韩非子政治思想再研究
当前位置:首页 > 政治军事 > 政治 > 韩非子政治思想再研究
出版社:中国人民大学
出版日期:2010-9
ISBN:9787300121642
作者:宋洪兵
页数:414页
内容概要
东北师范大学历史系博士，现任中国人民大学国学院讲师
书籍目录
上篇 研究立场、方法与视角
第一章 古今“韩非学”研究述评
一、韩非子研究的总体情况
二、《韩非子》及韩非子人格、身世
三、有关韩非子思想的学术争论
四、韩非子政治思想再研究的必要性
第二章 晚清“专制”概念的引入与20世纪的法家思想研究
一、“他者”视域中的“专制中国”印象
二、现代中国学界对“专制中国”的理论回应与法家思想研究
三、理论反思：“思想与社会”关系的多面性与复杂性
第三章 视角转换：从“差异”到“共识”
一、“差异”视角的学术史分析
二、“差异”视域中的“儒法之争”述评
三、“共识”视域中的儒法关系
下篇 政治价值与政治措施的有机融合——韩非子政治思想体系新探
第四章 先秦诸子的“政治共识”与韩非子思想的政治正义性
一、“天人”同构与“有道”社会
二、“国无君不可以为治
三、“立天子以为天下
四、韩非子政治思想的政治正义性
第五章 韩非子政治思想的现实取向与现实对策
一、政治现实主义与政治理想主义：法家与儒、道的精神特质
二、韩非子认识社会现实的基本方法
三、韩非子政治思想的现实对策
余论 韩非子政治思想的理论缺陷与当代价值
一、韩非子政治思想的演变趋向
二、韩非子政治思想的理论缺陷
三、韩非子政治思想的当代价值
附录 韩非子公私观的再诠释
一、韩非子“立公”的特定内涵
二、韩非子“废私”的特定内涵
三、结语
参考文献
后记
编辑推荐
国学是中国传统学术的简称，它应该是包罗宏富的。《韩非子政治思想再研究》旨在重新检讨韩非子政治思想研究的方法、立场和观点，探求先秦诸子在基本政治价值层面的思想共识，试图建构韩非子融政治价值与政治策略为一体的理论体系。
作者简介
韩非子是先秦法家思想的集大成者。本书旨在重新检讨韩非子政治思想研究的方法、立场和观点，探求先秦诸子在基本政治价值层面的思想共识，试图建构韩非子融政治价值与政治策略为一体的理论体系，通过分析韩非子政治思想蕴涵的多重理论可能性及历史形态，以期提供一个重新审视韩非子政治思想乃至整个传统政治思想资源的视角和途径，亦为重新认识传统思想与现代政治文明建设之间的逻辑关联提供一种具有历史眼光的借鉴与反思。本书将为当代重构“韩非学”的学术观点和研究理路做出有益尝试。
图书封面
发布书评
精彩书评 (总计2条)
-
Compared to Li Haisheng’s strong affinity to Marxian frame which could serve for the purpose for socio-political transformation and modernization of a country, Song Hongbing’s recent monograph about the Hanfeizi studies in China more focuses on what Li Haisheng has called “political scientist approach”. Song’s dissertation can be divided into two parts: in the former part, Song introduces four main subjects which the past Hanfeizi studies has focued on, while the latter part, he attempt to offer a some new framework to obtain unbiased evaluation of the contents and significance of Hanfeizi’s political philosophy in the Chinese political thought. In the first half part, Song observes that the past Hanfeizi research has developed in inquiring the following six major subjects on: (1) the degree that the extant the Book of Hanfeizi can represent the thought of Han Fei himself; (2) the validity of the biographical description about Han Fan in the Sima Qian’s Historical Records, and others; (3) the personality of Han Fei: He was a patriot to or a traitor to his mother country, the State of Han; (4) whether the notion of “Human nature is bad” is the core of Hanfeizi’s human understanding or not; (5) whether Han Fei saw the past history until his own time evolutionary or not; (6) whether Han Fei’s theory is anti-moral or not; (7) what is the most leading idea in Han Fei’s political theory among fa 法 (law and regulation), shu 術 (political technique or maneuver), and shi 勢 (influential position); and (8) whether or not Han Fei was responsible for the Qin’s “cruel rule (baozheng 暴政)” that led it to perish only for twenty-one years after its magnificent unification. Song observes that the Hanfeizi research has been overshadowed by the close association with an image of Qin’s cruel rule during the Han period, from which many negative aspects of Hanfeizi’s thought have been derived. Song also suggests that, as modern political science method has grown in the research of Chinese thought, the main characteristics of the Hanfeizi’s political philosophy has become to explained as a type of despotic rule which had been originally thought out by modern (i.e., 18th and 19th century) Western thinkers such as Montesquieu and Hegel. Song Hongbing’s account for the current situation of the contemporary Hanfeizi research (i.e. post-1970s) has shown that, like early 20th century, Chinese scholars still have a tendency for using the image of Hanfeizi’s political philosophy as a negative example for criticizing any old or feudalistic nature of Chinese political system by contrasting it with ideal democratic form of modern government. On this understanding, in the latter half of his dissertation, Song tries to elucidate the degree on how much Hanfeizi’s theory is despotic in comparison with other Warring States’ thinkers, and suggests that all despotic elements in Chinese political thought should not be considered to be originated from the Hanfeizi’s political philosophy.Although Song does not explain clearly about how Chinese scholars of post-Cultural Revolution period have transformed an initial dominant image of Hanfeizi in association with Qin’s “cruel rule” into another one which has brought by Western understanding of the nature of Chinese state as a “despotic rule”, Song’s observation can allow us to presume that the Hanfeizi research in China will be proceeded in reciprocity with such arguments about issues and problems of present and future Chinese political regime -
自然法是普芬道夫所在时代政治秩序的基础，不过随着民族国家的兴起与发展，普世性的自然法自然会与国家之间产生内在的紧张感，狄骥的《法律与国家》(冷静译．中国法制出版社，2010年6月这个译本早年收在狄骥‘公法的变迁法律与国家'，辽海出版杜•春风文艺出版社．1999年)要处理的问题是如何以普遍性的法律来约束一国内部的专制问题，狄骥试图寻找出高于国家的法律原则，实际上，直到今日这仍然是值得探究的重要议题。以上所荐基本为西文汉译，事实上，这些年来随着学界的酝酿发酵，不少新生代学者也在蓄势待发，如周保松的《自由人的平等政治》(三联书店．2010年6月)、曾亦的《共和与君主：康有为晚期政治思想研究》(上海人民出版社．2010年8月)以及宋洪兵的《韩非子政治思想再研究》(中国人民大学出版社．2010年9月)就是最近国内新生代学者的代表作，虽然各自研究主题不同，但是有趣的是，这三本书所透漏出来的关怀其实折射出今日中国思潮的不同取向，自由主义以及左翼与文化、政治保守主义的杂糅，未来这些思潮各自如何发展，值得继续观察。刊名：政治思想史英文刊名：TEACHINGANDLEARNINGINSECONDARYSCHOOL年，卷(期)：2010(4)
精彩短评 (总计3条)
-
法家也是国学的一种也要好好学！ -
这本书不错哦，是搞活动的时候买的，很划算，适合搞研究的人看。 -
思想是有的，行文主题一以贯之，就是对材料的解读略显单薄，有时有种堆积材料的赶脚~不过不管怎么说，已经算是一篇非常不错的博士论文了。