| 张文生.关于李大钊论历史学性质问题的探析[J].唐山学院学报,2016,29(5):19-23 |
| 关于李大钊论历史学性质问题的探析 |
| An Analysis of Li Dazhao's Views on the Nature of History |
| |
| DOI：10.16160/j.cnki.tsxyxb.2016.05.003 |
| 中文关键词: 李大钊 历史学 学科性质 |
| 英文关键词: Li Dazhao history nature |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 7695 |
| 全文下载次数: 6395 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 历史学的学科性质，是艺术，还是科学?在20世纪初期，中国史学家就这一问题展开讨论，李大钊很早就开始关注与思考这一史学理论中最基本而且很重要的理论问题。在近代中国，李大钊是对于历史学的学科性质问题论述较早，也较为成熟的史学家。李大钊关于历史学特有性质的论述，是他史学思想中的一个重要内容。否认历史学不具有科学性的一些人，往往是从否认历史发展无规律可循立论的。李大钊关于历史学性质的论述也是对这一不正确的认识的积极回应。李大钊坚定地指出：“史学之当为一种科学，在今日已无疑义。”李大钊在坚持历史学的学科性质是科学的同时，也承认在具体的历史研究过程中存在艺术性的工作。历史学研究含有艺术性的工作和历史学是艺术是两回事。历史研究中所体现的这种艺术性是工作层面的事情，并不等同于学科层面。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| In the early 20th century, Chinese historians began to discuss the nature of history:whether it is art or science. Very early Li Dazhao began to think about this most basic and important theoretical issue. In modern China,Li Dazhao's interetation of the discipline nature of history was early and mature. His explanation of the unique nature of history is an important part of his historiography. Those who deny that history is science often argue that there is no law to follow in the development of history. Therefore, Li Dazhao's discussion of the nature of history is a positive response to this incorrect understanding. Li Dazhao firmly said:"History is a science, which is no doubt today." Li Dazhao not only adhered to the nature of history, but also admitted that there were artistic works in the process of concrete historical research. That the study of history involves artistic work does not means that history is an art. The artistry of historical research is just one aspect of historical work,which is not equal to the discipline nature. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |