近三十年臺灣思想文化界思索的主題，在本書可讀到錢新祖老師的先見之明 儘管錢老師已離開這個世界，但他的思想之於臺灣社會，仍未遠離 本書收錄了錢新祖教授從一九七○年代中期開始撰述的中英文論著共二十六篇，內容涵蓋思想史論與文化批評。錢氏積極參與中文學術文化界的對話，從其留下的眾多論述，可以清楚看出近三十年來臺灣思想文化問題發展的延續 性軌跡，進而感受到作為思想者的錢氏對其當下時空毫不苟且的反思。錢氏一生看重「語言」之於人類存在的重要性、渴望揉和多元文化價值而亟欲創造一種新語言，本書特別收錄的英文論文，為此留下了重要的紀錄。.

1980年代開風氣之先，將當代西方思潮批判性地引入中國思想研究領域的錢新祖教授所留下的《中國思想史講義》將再度啟迪新一代的人文社會學研究者 本書為錢新祖先生極具個人見解的中國思想史，不同於一般哲學史或思想史教科書機械式的綱舉目張，書中每講都直接進入哲學問題，展開討論分析，盡顯洞見。例如論中國思想的起源，直指人文主義的稱說所涉及的是中西對天 人關係構想的不同。作者有紮實的中西學術基礎，又能跳出各自的思考局限，從對比中彰顯中西思想傳統的特色，在書中發展為一種自覺的跨文化比較分析措辭手法，在現今全球化的語境中，特別值得參考。.

Having read the works of Wang Ch'ung [A.D. 27-c. 100], I realized that they need to be recapitulated. Here I shall evaluate Wang Ch'ung and his thought and present what I feel to be the real significance that Wang Ch'ung's thought still has today.

In ancient times in our country, Wang Ch'ung was an eminent materialist and a brilliant atheist, a progressive thinker who opposed the orthodox feudal thought. This has gone basically unquestioned. This year the February 21 issue of Kuang-ming jih-pao printed in its philosophy section an article by Comrade T'ung Mo-an, "Is Wang Ch'ung a Peasant Class Thinker?" The article is an evaluation completely denying this. T'ung believes that the purpose of Wang Ch'ung's works was "to uphold the rule of the (...) Han," "ardently and unconditionally to sing the praises of the Han ruler and court," "to make sacred the rule of the Han," "to get the populace to live quietly, forever in a servile position," and "to view inimically and to slander peasant uprisings." "Wang Ch'ung was an orthodox thinker of the landlord class," "a thinker produced in the interests of the rule of the landlord class who confirmed the feudal orthodoxy." Although I myself am not praising Wang Ch'ung as a peasant class thinker or denying that in Wang Ch'ung's thought there are negative elements, I am completely unable to agree with the basic viewpoint that the author puts forward. (shrink)

During the past year, there has been progressive criticism and debate in the literary field centered on my former point of view in aesthetics. This has been very helpful to me. As a result of this, I have a better understanding of the errors of the basic starting point in subjective idealism. At the same time, I have gained a clearer understanding of the basic question in aesthetics and of the differences among the various opinions of those who took part (...) in the debate. This is not yet the time for summarizing; but as we shall see below, the road that we have taken and even the difficulties that we have encountered along that road have been very beneficial to our progressive inquiries. (shrink)

Comrade Huang Yüeh-mien's article, "A Discussion of the Aesthetics of the Wealthy" [Lun shih-li che ti mei-hsüeh], which criticized my point of view in aesthetics, was published later than my self-criticism. Before he published it, he had presented it at a discussion meeting at Peking Teachers College. He let me read it only after he had submitted it to Literature [Wen-i pao] for publication. I wrote to the editor of Literature, Comrade K'ang Cho, saying that basically I accepted his criticisms (...) but that I wished to raise a number of points. I pointed out that the author's method of dealing with the problems of "empathy emotion," "forgetting self," and "inspiration" was not very different from the method that I had used before. I pointed out that "association of ideas" occupied an important position in his aesthetics — he seems to substitute "association of ideas of form" for "intuition of form." Furthermore, I stated that I did not think he had answered clearly the questions of whether "beauty exists in the mind or in the thing," of the relationship between beauty and sense of beauty, and of the difference between formal thought and abstract thought; and I said that I hoped he would give me more assistance with these questions. However, Comrade Huang Yüeh-mien for the most part ignored the points that I had raised and the questions to which I had sought answers, and he published in Literature the paper that he had presented at Peking Teachers College almost unaltered. Consequently, the questions that I raised concerning Comrade Huang Yüeh-mien's point of view in aesthetics remain unanswered. At that time I still felt that his point of view in aesthetics basically was materialistic, although there were some tendencies in it that raised doubts in my mind. This explains the fact that my judgments on idealist aesthetics remain to be improved. (shrink)

Before liberation, my publications on aesthetics and literary theory had a widespread evil influence upon young readers. Since liberation, I have regretted that. I have eagerly studied Marxism-Leninism, seeking first to establish and then to destroy, in the hope that one day I will have thoroughly cleansed the long-standing infections in my thought. By waiting "to establish" I am putting off the task of "destroying." However, if a thing is not established, it cannot really be destroyed, and if it is (...) not destroyed, it cannot be established; the tasks of establishing and destroying must proceed together. At the present time, in order to bring socialism to its highest point of development, the Party and the government are making even greater demands on the intellectuals, expecting them to carry out a thoroughgoing program of thought reform so as to tran-quilize the remnants of the rotten thinking of the capitalist class and to establish the Marxist-Leninist world outlook and scientific method, thus demonstrating its inherent strength through socialist reconstruction. All the intellectuals accept this summons eagerly. As far as I myself am concerned, the Party's concern and teaching during the past few years have already produced fundamental changes in me, and I am truly grateful for the new life that the Party has given me. I feel that in this great summons, whether it be to wash away the evil influences of the past or whether it be for the benefit of my future scientific work, it is my responsibility to take advantage of this opportunity to progressively and sincerely criticize my own reactionary, rotten thinking. This I understand clearly, but at the present level of my thinking, I still feel unequal to the task. Nevertheless, I am confident that what I cannot see myself my comrades can certainly point out for me. (shrink)