胡適是在「傳統中國」走向「現代中國」關鍵時期「始終活躍在思想界的中心人物」，更是被公認為整個中國歷史上「繼往開來的一位啓蒙大師」。本文研究1891至1917年間胡適的「國家」概念。研究從指出他在這個時間段三個不同時間點的故事中關於國家概念論述的差異性出發，首先追問的便是各種指稱國家的語詞與實體國家之間是否可以具有內在統一性的問題。於是在第一章中，本文圍繞故事一與故事三中胡適用詞與用句的特點進行了文本分析，闡明它們背後所代表的意義，並進一步將與兩個故事存在密切關聯的相關概念分別做了比較研究。總體來看，得到的結論有兩點：1.一個語詞在同時代的不同個體理解下存在差異;2.一個個體也會經常修正自己的語詞使用，從而導致同一語詞在不同的時間點可能代表著不同的含義。這就為我們理解語詞與事物的關係提出了挑戰--究竟我們能不能談論所用的語詞來指稱某個對象時具有正確性？漢斯-格奧爾格伽達默爾（Hans-Georg Gadamer）在《真理與方法》（Truth and Method）第三部份「以語言為主線的詮釋學本體論轉向」中的理論架構，為擺脫這個困境提供了很好的論證途徑。通過關於上帝語言的討論來承接古希臘的邏各斯與語言現象中的概念構成，伽達默爾意在指出，只有語詞的使用才是有正確與錯誤之分的，而語詞本身都是正確的、「合適」的。於是，接下去的問題便是為何個人在使用語詞上會出現偏差？對偏差的修正又是如何可能發生的？第二章便是通過對於胡適案例中三個故事的詳細展開，將胡適的國家概念呈現為是一種連續不斷地圍繞著一個個具體的事件來回展開思辨的過程。這個概念構成的過程，是在伴隨著胡適對於自己舊有概念不停再檢驗的同時，慢慢深化與拓展的。而伽達默爾在世界經驗的思辨結構中所指出的事件性與創造性，為我們理解這樣的國家概念提供了理論幫助。最後，本文採用「民族國家認同」的角度來系統性地整合第一、二章中對於國家概念的兩種歷史性的追溯方法。概括來說，政治參與作為一種世界經驗，能促使具有特殊性意味的歷史文化認同發生反思，並進而與發現的具有普遍性意味的政治認同進行調和。也正是由於要突出思辨的過程性質，不同於以往對於胡適政治觀的普遍認識，本文指出留美時期的胡適更多意義上體現的是一種「共和派的愛國主義」。就這點而言，胡適案例意在表明，思想史的研究需要盡力在歷史環境中恢復概念思想者在過去、現在與將來之間複雜的應用過程，從而讓歷史學免於成為哲學或是文學。Abstract This study is to investigate Hu Shi's usage of words and their meanings referring to guojia from his first-hand historical materials during 1891-1917. In order to deal with the discovery of inconsistency in terms of Hu Shi's usage of words and understandings of guojia in his three stories at different points of time, also in his formation and transformation of the concept of guojia over the period, this study has constructed a theoretical framework based on Hans-Georg Gadamer's ontological reflection on the relationship between concept and object from his philosophical hermeneutics. After doing textual analyses and comparative studies on two of the three stories about Hu's understandings of guojia respectively in Chapter One, Chapter Two tries to bring to attention the significance of the processual and creative elements in Hu's concept formation by showing the link between the disintegration of his former ideas and reconstruction of his new understandings, with what he has experienced in Shanghai and the United States recorded in the first-hand historical materials. The study finally examines his thoughts on the legitimacy of guojia, especially pointing out his political participation in the United States, to demonstrate the possibility to reconcile the tension between cultural specificity and political universality on the issue of national identity.

黃華昌. / "2002年5月" / 論文 (哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2002. / 參考文獻 (leaves 98-102) / 附中英文提要. / "2002 nian 5 yue" / Huang Huachang. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2002. / Can kao wen xian (leaves 98-102) / Fu Zhong Ying wen ti yao. / Chapter 第一章. --- 李劼人生平、作品及其研究槪況 --- p.1 / Chapter 第二章. --- 三部曲與歷史小說 --- p.8 / Chapter 2.1 --- 歷史小說文類介說 --- p.8 / Chapter 2.2 --- 三部曲的歷史小說特色 --- p.17 / Chapter 2.2a --- 《死水微瀾》´ؤ´ؤ淡遠的歷史背景下的小鎭故事 --- p.18 / Chapter 2.2b --- 《暴風雨前》´ؤ´ؤ風雨將至，歷史的步履漸重 --- p.25 / Chapter 2.2c --- 《大波》´ؤ´ؤ滾滾浪濤，何以安身 --- p.32 / Chapter 2.3 --- 三部曲與中國現代歷史小說 --- p.41 / Chapter 第三章´Ø --- 三部曲的「民間」寫作與三十年代文學 --- p.46 / Chapter 第四章´Ø --- 李劼人的三部曲與茅盾的《子夜》´ؤ´ؤ兩種敘述歷史的模式 --- p.61 / Chapter 第五章. --- 男女情慾故事´ؤ´ؤ個人空間與歷史空間 --- p.71 / Chapter 第六章´Ø --- 新舊版《大波》比較 --- p.81 / Chapter 第七章´Ø --- 總結 --- p.93 / 附錄：保路運動大事表 --- p.95 / 參考書目 --- p.101

Democracy was one of the many Western ideas that began to be discussed among the Chinese intellectual elite in the last decades of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). Liang Qichao (1873-1929), a leader of the 1895-98 Reform Movement, and Hu Shi (1891-1962), a central figure of the 1915-27 New Culture Movement, were two of the most influential proponents of democracy in modern Chinese history. Liang and Hu linked their meanings of democracy with the highest goals for China, national strength and modernity. Liang Qichao was a revolutionary in advocating the opening of participation in politics to people outside the official government structure through his leadership role in the 1895 Protest Petition. His abundant writings on political events and prescriptions for reform aroused the attention of a wider population than had previously considered national issues. Liang promoted political reforms during the years up to the 1911 Revolution, and then took a direct role in politics in the early Republic. Hu Shi expanded on the meaning of democracy to include social and political change. He, too, wrote prolifically and was a key figure in the literary renaissance which aimed to promote education of a broader spectrum of the populace by the use of the vernacular in writing. While Hu did not participate directly in political life, he was a constant advocate of democratic institutions and social and cultural progress. Both Liang and Hu placed a high value on education and tirelessly promoted the exploration of new ideas as the path to modernity. They both harshly criticized the governments under which they worked but preferred gradual reform rather than radical revolution. While their understanding of democracy differed in their generational contexts and personal experiences, they believed that thoughtful participation in politics and society was the core essence of democracy and modernity.

The concern of Chinese intellectuals with the "idea" of modern science from the West in the transition generation from 1895 to 1923 was fundamentally a concern about "national survival" and modernity. The value and meaning that accrued to science as "method" -- as a "thinking technique" -- and to the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer as the "science of choice" among Chinese intellectuals of this period, was due to belief or disbelief in the power of these ideas to describe, explain, or solve the problematic of "modernity" in a Chinese context.

University of Macau / Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities / Department of Chinese

China has become a major contributor to world science today, with the largest number of qualified scientific publications in the world, a centralized government willing to sponsor the development of science, and pioneering scientists in all disciplines. Where did this scientific power emerge from historically and how did this history connect with the rest of the world? My dissertation suggests that comprehending the Sino-American intellectual exchange network since the early twentieth century is essential for us to grasp the development of science in modern China. It argues that a Sino-American intellectual exchange network through the China Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Culture (ie., the China Foundation) played a critical role in the development of modern scientific research and education from the 1920 to the 1940s. In the first half of the twentieth century, leading American intellectuals of the progressive era such as Teachers College’s educational scholar Paul Monroe and Columbia University’s prominent philosopher of pragmatism John Dewey frequently communicated with prominent Chinese intellectuals, many of whom were their former students in the United States. Such face-to-face interchanges across the Pacific ultimately influenced Chinese choices in shaping modern scientific education and research. The impact was generated primarily through the China Foundation. The China Foundation, financed by the second American remission of the Boxer Indemnity Funds, served as a sponsor of the development of scientific research, teaching and training in modern China. The trustees of the foundation, responsible for the custody and administration of the fund, included prominent Chinese intellectuals (most of whom had received western graduate training) such as Hu Shi (PhD, Columbia), Jiang Menglin (PhD, Teachers College), Zhang Boling (visiting fellow at Teachers College, 1917-1918), Ren Hongjun (H. C. Zen, MA, Columbia), Guo Bingwen (PhD, Teachers College), Ding Wenjiang (aka V. K. Ting, BA, University of Glasgow), Zhao Yuanren (aka Y. R. Chao, PhD, Harvard) as well as the American intellectuals and reformers Paul Monroe, John Dewey, Roger Sherman Greene and John Leighton Stuart. This dissertation researches the history of Sino-American intellectual exchanges in the China Foundation network, which were central to the establishment of science in modern China. It begins by tracing the cohort of leading Chinese intellectuals trained at American universities, who paved the way for its establishment. They invited leading American educators like John Dewey and Paul Monroe to China, and did the translation work that allowed for their reformist ideas of democracy, education and science to become popular in China. While the American intellectuals aspired to transmit a democratic education through introducing science, the Chinese intellectuals also developed their own rationales to pursue China’s scientific modernization. It also examines the political assumptions and tensions wound up in this Sino-American educational exchange network that illuminates the ways in which the intellectuals on both sides of the Pacific were mutually influenced by their intellectual exchanges. In asks the following questions: How did American intellectuals of the progressive era design and pursue a democratic vision for the Chinese scientific development, and what were their political assumptions undergirding the transmission of science? How did the Chinese intellectuals respond to the American knowledge of science, translate, and negotiate this transmission of science to China? What aspects of science did they absorb and incorporate for the Chinese national purposes? What ideas did they absorb from the United States, and what aspects did they deliberately eschew? In posing these questions, part of my goal is to shift the predominant narrative of transnational progressive era US intellectual history from “Atlantic Crossings” to a dense and constitutive set of exchanges of knowledge, ideas and practices of sciences across the Pacific.