Editors’ AbstractThis articles expresses a strong discontent with Sinologism and argues that its rise is the result of an uncritical application of Said’s Orientalism and postcolonial theory to Sinology, and that its proponents have committed a grave error in treating Sinology as a discourse of ideology full of subjective imaginations, to the neglect of the fact that Sinology is a branch of objective scholarship. After reviewing the evolution of the concept of Sinology in history, it critically analyzes some major ideas (...) of Sinologism in relation to Orientalism and draws the conclusion that the proponents of Sinologism are unaware of the inherent problems in Said’s theory and postmodern theory, have inadequate knowledge of Sinological history, and oversimplified the complex issues in Sinological studies. (shrink)

本书是 "海外汉学研究丛书" 之一, 全书共分三个部分, 主要从各个角度呈现了莱布尼茨对中国的关注及他思想中与中国相关的元素, 具体内容包括"反各种乌托邦思想的人类可完满性--莱布尼茨政治哲学的几个观点","莱布尼茨认识与文化的多元透视洞悉论与其形而上学基础","耶稣会士白晋与莱布尼茨","中国莱布尼茨研究的历史,现状和展望" 等.

本书以人物、机构和刊物为抓手，对16-18世纪儒学西传欧洲进行了全面的梳理和总结，对中国古代文化经典外译的数量和时段做了初步的划分，也对我国中学西传研究滞后的原因做了分析。.