Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
標題: 「中國思想史」課程源流考察——兼論 中文系「中國思想史」的教材
A Study on the Origin and Development of the Course “History of Chinese Thought”-With a Discussion of Its Teaching Materials Used by Chinese Departments in Taiwan
作者: 李宗定
Lee, Tsung-Ting
關鍵字: 中國思想史
History of Chinese Thought
History of Chinese Philosophy
Chinese Department
Philosophy Department
Philosophical Education
摘要: 「中國思想史」是臺灣各大學中文學系的必修學科,也是各中文研究所入學 考試的專業科目,其重要性不言可喻。然而,臺灣的中學教育並無「哲學」課程, 學生對於中國哲學的認識多半來自「國文」,以及「歷史」課程中的簡單介紹。這 樣的學習非常簡略,又因考試導向,教學僅只能是知識的背誦,很難進行哲學思 考論辯。學生沒有哲學的學習經驗,也未曾接觸哲學文獻,當考入大學中文學系, 面臨「中國思想史」課程時,往往感到困難而無所適從。因此,授課教師往往得 花費時間引導學生進入哲學思考,但這種思考轉向對於習慣知識背誦的學生而言, 往往事倍功半,於是最後常流於死記硬背以應付考試,導致學習效果不佳。該如 何帶領學生進入「中國思想史」?了解此課程的由來與沿革,以及「中國思想史」 與「中國哲學史」的異同,或許是入門的第一步。中文系開設「中國思想史」與 哲學系講授「中國哲學史」,兩者科目名稱不同,但是多用相同教材,課程內容也 相同,這種情況有其歷史淵源,又有兩系所代表的中西文化對比。至於「中國思 想史」的教學用書,目前大多使用或參考勞思光先生的《新編中國哲學史》,勞先 生的著作批判力強,論述精深,但對於初學者來說,並不是一部合適的入門書, 如做為上課教材,授課教師必須花費心力講解勞著中的各種問題,有時反客為主。 而各種《中國哲學史》與《中國思想史》的著作,何種較適合做為教學用書?理想的教材須具備何種條件?本文從教學出發,針對中文系「中國思想史」課程的 教材,進行觀察分析。
It goes without saying that the course “History of Chinese Thought” is so important in Taiwan academia, both in the sense that the course has been taken by all Chinese Departments as one of the compulsory courses so far, and that it has often been one of the professional subjects of admission examination at postgraduate school level. But, given the lack of philosophy course in the high school educational policy, graduated students who finally major in Chinese literature often find it difficult to learn the history of Chinese thought well, though they had received basic philosophical training from certain related courses, such as Chinese language and Chinese history, which are focusing on reading texts by rote mechanically instead of thinking or disputation. For this reason, lecturers in universities have to spend much more time to introduce the importance of thinking, even though it seems so ineffectively to change students’ habit of learning by rote at all. So is there any method to guide students into the course “History of Chinese Thought” effectively? The first step, in a sense, might be both a clarification of the developmental context of the course as well as a comparison between the two related concepts, i.e., “thought” and “philosophy”. Though being different in terms of the course name, the course “History of Chinese Thought” offered by Chinese Department and the course “History of Chinese Philosophy” by Philosophy Department,historically speaking, often both use the same teaching materials with similar course schedule. Among a great number of academic writings on the history of Chinese thought as teaching material, Xinbian Zhongguo Zhexueshi (History of Chinese Philosophy: A New Version), written by professor Sze-Kwang Lao, can be regarded as the most appreciated one. But Lao’s book does not function as a kind of elementary material, for it is sophisticated enough, not only for freshmen who begin to learn Chinese philosophy, but too for lecturers who would be involved in interpreting various philosophical views implied in Lao’s book, to the extent that the original texts would be easily neglected of instead. For a lecturer who is responsible for teaching the history of Chinese thought, what should be paid attention when choosing the most appropriated teaching material? Or, more basically, what condition(s) should be satisfied for an ideal material on the history of Chinese thought/philosophy? From a perspective of teaching, this article aims at investigating several issues pertaining to materials used in the course “History of Chinese Thought” offered by Chinese Departments in Taiwan.
Appears in Collections:興大中文學報 第46期



Show full item record

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.