摘要
现代学术界对于启蒙有两种解释方法,即哲学家的启蒙和历史学家的启蒙,在研究方法上有实证意义与形而上学、民族性与普适性之分。第一种方法自法国革命后经历了两次转折,从乐观主义到悲观主义,又过渡到现代性批判。第二种方法在思想史、概念史和形而上学之外注重事实分析,涉及现代历史的宏观领域和微观领域。这种方法跨域了国家和民族边界,进而形成大西洋启蒙观,但总体而言仍有欧洲中心论的迹象。在全球史开端之际,这一领域出现了突破欧洲中心论和大西洋史的机会,在超越民族国家的意义上发掘观念的世界联系,同时不回避殖民主义与东方主义对启蒙普适性的质疑,在普适性、长时段和实践意义上构建启蒙全球史的方法。
There are two sorts of Enlightenment Hermeneutics in academic circles,that is philosopher’s Enlightenment and historian’s Enlightenment with distinct characteristics,such as positivistic versus metaphysical,national context versus universal context.The philosopher’s Enlightenment has experienced two watershed moments since the French Revolution,that is from optimism to pessimism and then to Criticism of Modernity.The historian’s Enlightenment has explored different methods,including text interpretation,macro-analysis and micro-analysis.Even though Atlantic Enlightenment takes shape in late 20th century,Europocentrism has not been break through completely.However,the appearance of Global history could make a difference,explain cross-cultural and international contacts between the conceptions,confront the dilemma of Colonialism,Orientalism and Enlightenment,and then explain the Global Enlightenment from the point of view of universality,long-term and practicalism.
出处
《世界历史评论》
2019年第4期48-82,M0004,共36页
The World History Review
基金
国家社科基金青年项目“17—18世纪法国的传统、现代与民族话语体系”（项目编号：17CSS029）的阶段性成果
