论文部分内容阅读
学者们研究《鬼神之明》时,无论是肯定、部分肯定还是否定简文与墨家的关系,均多围绕墨家展开讨论。运用同样的逻辑进行分析,《鬼神之明》也可以是儒家的佚文或儒家别派的作品。春秋战国时期怀疑鬼神的公正、能力,甚至怀疑鬼神存在者并不鲜见,可见《鬼神之明》中“鬼神有所明有所不明”的思想不属墨家特有,而是春秋战国时期不少有识之士的共同看法,因而仅仅凭借“鬼神”思想来判定学派属性是靠不住的。当今学界判定学派属性,出现“鬼神”观念便联想与墨家有关,于是使用各种方法加以论证,甚至不惜“削足适履”。这种思维定式值得我们反思。
When scholars study the “spirits of the spirits and gods”, no matter affirmative or partly affirmed or denied the relationship between the essay on the one hand and the Mohism on the other, they mostly discuss the Mohism. Using the same logic for analysis, “spirits of the spirits and gods” can also be works of Confucian Lost or Confucian school. In the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Period, it was not uncommon to suspect the spirits and abilities of the spirits and gods, and even to suspect the existence of the spirits and gods. This shows that the thought of “the spirits and gods are not clearly understood” in “the spirits of the spirits and gods” is not unique to the Mohists, Many people of insight common view, so just by virtue of “ghosts and gods ” thought to determine the school attributes are unreliable. In today’s academic circles, the attribute of the school is judged, and the concept of “ghosts and gods ” appears to associate with the Mohist School. Therefore, various methods are used to prove it, even at the expense of cutting the foot. This type of thinking deserves our reflection.