According to the theory of evolution, their advocates of the new culture movement opposed the metaphysics of "the sky remains unchanged, so does the Tao", denied the sacredness of feudalism, and pointed out: "What the ancient sages said may not be all words. Even if every word is true, it is not necessarily unchangeable because of the changes of the times. "(1) At that time, the practical significance of this view was to break the" taboo of ideological circles "and promote people's ideological emancipation. What was the "ideological block" at that time? They think there are three main points: one is "respecting the saints", that is, "thinking that all opinions will be compromised by saints" (2), that is, taking the right and wrong of Confucius as right and wrong. In this way, "no one dares to criticize Confucius with his own thoughts. Therefore, when I saw the criticism of Confucius, I thought it was deviant and counterintuitive, and I wanted to put the blame on those who criticized Confucius. Confucius became a sacred and inviolable idol. The second is "respecting the ancients", that is, "if you think you don't learn from the ancients, you are inferior" (4). Therefore, scholars "do not study the truth for the purpose, but blindly follow the ancients" and "those who can learn from the past must be self-sufficient and pretend to learn from the past and the present". This is the British scholar Bacon's "so-called idol occlusion" (5). Respect for the past has become a matter of course. I just don't think it's enough to "inspire people's morality" to despise the "quintessence of the country". At that time, there were three schools of "national quintessence": first, "I thought that learning from foreign countries in Europe was not as good as learning from saints in China"; Second, "I think the study in Europe is sincere and beautiful, and the inherent study in China should be respected first, so I don't have to give up myself and follow others"; Third, "I think all the knowledge of Europeans can be found in China". (6) Therefore, they regard the so-called "national quintessence" as a "god", while those different from it are regarded as heresies and cannot be sanctified. In fact, the "national quintessence" in this myth is nothing more than feudal dross such as Confucianism and ethics. Mr. Lu Xun once hit the nail on the head and said that this kind of "national quintessence" is like a person "with a tumor on his face and a sore on his forehead, which is really different" and "can be regarded as his" national quintessence ". However, in my opinion, it is better to cut off this' essence' and be as good as others. " (7) Therefore, in order to break the "occlusion of the ideological circle", we must destroy these idols in the ideological circle and smash the shackles of occlusion caused by these idols, so that people can be liberated. Destroying idols, "only scientific research can get it, and nothing else can succeed" (8).
In order to get rid of idolatry, progressive thinkers at that time not only used the weapons of natural science, but also used the weapons of philosophy. This is skepticism, or "skepticism." There have been various skepticism in the history of philosophy, such as the skepticism of Pyrrho, an ancient Greek philosopher, and the skepticism of Laozi and Zhuangzi School in the pre-Qin period of China, all of which belong to the declining philosophical trend of thought in the era of slavery. In modern Europe, however, the skepticism of bourgeois enlightenment thinkers appeared. They played an active role in opposing medieval theological dogma and scholasticism and served the bourgeoisie in opposing the feudal system. When Marx commented on the French thinker Bourget (1647- 1706), he pointed out: "In the17th century, it was Bourget who smeared metaphysics and all metaphysics, and his weapon was skepticism tempered by the spell of metaphysics itself." He also said: "Boueyre Pell not only destroyed metaphysics with skepticism, thus laying the foundation for mastering French materialism and sound rational philosophy, but also proved that ... it is not atheism that insults human dignity, but superstition and idolatry." (9) The skepticism in the May 4th Movement has the same characteristics as that in the European Enlightenment, and it is one of the philosophical manifestations of democratic thought. Yun's skepticism is the representative of progressive thinkers who advocated skepticism at that time. In the article "Skepticism" (10), although Yun agrees that the ancient Greek skeptic philosopher (translated into Chinese) is skeptical about everything, he opposes his absolute skepticism about the nature of things, so there is no need for textual research. In fact, the skepticism mentioned by Yun and others is a critical spirit closely related to dialectics. This skepticism has the following characteristics: first, doubt is not an end, but a search for truth. They said, "Doubt is the motive of seeking truth. Because of doubt, we study, because of research, the truth comes out. " (1 1) It can be seen that in their view, doubt is only the starting point of the process of knowing truth, rather than denying the existence of truth, which is essentially different from absolute skepticism that doubt is everything. Second, there is an ideological connection with the theory of evolution. They believe that "all aspects of world evolution originated from doubt" and that doubt "is the only tool to promote world evolution" (12). In this way, doubt and evolution have become a causal relationship, a relationship between means and ends. They also believe that human intelligence evolves day by day according to the viewpoint of evolution, and the scope of knowledge is not immutable and insurmountable. They believe that human beings can understand the essence of things as long as they are willing to move forward. (13) In this way, their skepticism is different from ancient absolute skepticism and Kant's agnosticism. Third, it directly targets people's idolatry. They pointed out that people "always want to be attached to an idol", "so when he shows this superstition, he enters that superstition; Here is liberation, and there is bondage. This is really a common reason for the lag of evolution. How to save Zheng? ..... This is doubt ". Therefore, they openly oppose any "natural laws and regulations" and ask people to "think it over, what is nature in your heart?" Does he really have a point? What is anti-classical and anti-normal? Does he really oppose classics? (14) They exposed the deceptive argument that "superficial thinkers" preached feudal morality in the name of "sages". They asked, "Is morality the word of a saint? Who is a saint? ..... Who called him a saint? If they call him a saint, does he really have to be a saint? What he said must be moral? " (15) This bold spirit of doubt pointed directly at feudal ethics and feudal "saints" and "sages", which undoubtedly played an ideological mobilization role in the struggle to overthrow Kongjiadian at that time. It can be seen that skepticism mentioned by progressive thinkers during the May 4th Movement is an ideological weapon to break people's idolatry. This skepticism is essentially a revolutionary critical spirit.
The fierce attack on Confucianism, Confucianism and Confucius' authority is an important part of the May 4th New Culture Movement. As we all know, since Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty "ousted a hundred schools of thought and respected Confucianism alone", Confucianism has occupied the main position of the temple, and Confucian classics have always had absolute ideological authority in the traditional society of China. Authentic Confucian scholars in past dynasties constantly expounded the doctrine of Confucian classics in order to maintain the autocratic rule of monarchy in real social life. Emperors in past dynasties strengthened the authoritative position of Confucian classics, Confucianism and Confucius with their supreme monarchical arrogance. The authority of Confucian classics, Confucianism and Confucius and the autocratic rule of kingship in real social life are intertwined and mutually causal. Until modern times, the feudal retro school still closely linked the authority of Confucianism, Confucianism and Confucius with autocratic monarchy in political life. For example, after the Xinhai, the autocracy was compared with * * *, feudalism and democracy, and they were nostalgic for the old system and disdained to change their voices. They lamented that the autocratic monarchy was "swept away by discipline and rules, and the road was ignored" (16). If abandoned, everyone will have no master, and they will not know what is right and wrong, nor what to keep "(18). Overthrowing the autocratic emperor was falsely accused as "not the fate of Manchuria, but the fate of Duke Zhou and Confucius in China for thousands of years" (19). As for the leaders of Zhang Xun, Yuan Shikai, Beiyang Army and Fuan Society, they all practiced different forms of autocracy in real politics, and at the same time publicized and strengthened the authority of Confucianism, Confucianism and Confucius in ideology and culture. In view of this, this progressive thinker of the May 4th Movement, who advocates democracy and science, tries to overthrow Confucius' shop and man-eating feast, and points out that people "always want to be attached to an idol" in view of people's superstitious psychology. Here is liberation, and there is bondage. This is really a common reason for the lag of evolution. How to save Zheng? ..... This is doubt "(20). Therefore, they openly oppose any "natural laws and regulations" and ask people to "think it over, what is nature in your heart?" Does he really have a point? What is anti-classical and anti-normal? Does he really oppose classics? (2 1) As for Mr. Gu Jiegang and his representative school of ancient history, they not only treat ancient history books with suspicion, but also doubt the classics, and based on their belief in Confucian classics, they point out that "the study of national heritage is an academic matter". National heritage is material, not idealistic. (22) Moreover, based on the viewpoint of historical and academic equality, it is emphasized that studying history "always makes clear the general trend of each era, and knowing the' social psychology' of each era is much more important than remembering the' stories' of each era. Therefore, we should regard proverbs as more important than the teachings of sages, folk songs as more important than famous poems, and unofficial history's notes as more important than official books. Why? Because proverbs such as unofficial history come from the people, they are willing to tell the truth of the people's society; Compared with official history, official books, sages and gentlemen, it is mainly perfunctory. " (23) Although a little extreme, it not only led to the marginalization of Confucian classics, but also played an important role in announcing the end of the authority of Confucian classics in the past two thousand years.
As the backbone of the ancient history school, Qian's thought of doubting classics is not only the product of the movement against idolatry and emancipating the mind and culture with skepticism as a philosophical weapon, but also effectively promotes the development of the Great Cultural Movement in the field of academic thought, which is of great significance in the history of modern thought and culture.
Qian studied Erya, The Book of Songs, Zuo Zhuan in the Spring and Autumn Period, Biography of the Spring and Autumn Ram, etc. And grew up in primary school, laying a solid historical foundation. When I was studying in Japan, I was influenced by Zhang Taiyan, a master of Chinese studies. 19 1 1 year, I visited Cui Shi in my hometown, read the manuscript of Historical Records, and borrowed Kang Youwei's "A New Study on Pseudo-Classics" from Cui Shi. Since then, I have devoted myself to this article, respecting Cui Shi as a teacher and calling myself a disciple. 19 17 years, he corresponded with Chen Duxiu, contributed New Youth, participated in the China Language Research Association, and put forward the idea of "taking history as a mirror and managing sociology in practice", which clearly showed his attitude of actively supporting the literary revolution and joining the new culture movement, and soon became one of the leaders of the new culture movement. At the same time, Qian, who is becoming more and more mature, began to break the tradition of ancient prose and modern prose, put forward his own academic thought of doubting ancient prose and classics, and criticized and sorted out traditional classics with his profound knowledge of primary school and classics. 192 1 year, after many correspondence with Gu Jiegang, he wrote a book "Distinguishing from False Friends" and a book "Research on Ancient Classics in China", which was included in the first book on distinguishing from false in ancient history edited by Gu. This directly led to the "ancient history discrimination movement" (24) starting from the May 4th New Culture Movement, which marked that the academic research on China's history and thoughts in China began to get rid of the limitations of medieval research methods and levels, and made a brand-new scientific clean-up of ancient history.
In the May 4th New Culture Army, especially in the ancient history school, Qian was the first person who paid attention to distinguishing the authenticity of Confucian classics and put forward systematic skepticism. 192 1 year, corresponded with Hu Shi and Gu Jiegang to discuss the compilation of "Distinguishing Fake Books". At that time, Gu Jiegang did not pay much attention to distinguishing the authenticity of Confucian classics, but Qian repeatedly told him that he was dissatisfied with both modern and ancient Confucian classics, which attracted Gu's attention and had a direct impact on his academic career. On June 5th, this year, 165438, Xuan Tong sent a letter to Gu Jiegang, specifically discussing the problem of compiling lost classics and distinguishing fake characters. He thought that this matter was urgent, and pointed out that distinguishing classics was as important as distinguishing sub-books, even more important, because "classics" was highly praised by scholars and was dominant. Scholars' thoughts can't be liberated if they don't discriminate falsehood to break their authority. 1923, Gu Jiegang published "On Ancient History Books with Mr. Qian", and put forward the sensational view that "the ancient history of China is caused by layers", arguing that "the later the times, the longer the legendary ancient history period"; "As time goes by, the central figure in the legend is getting bigger and bigger"; Although we can't know the true state of something, we can know its earliest state in legend. For example, even if we can't know the history of Xia and Shang Dynasties, we can know the history of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty in the Warring States Period, but we can know the history of Xia and Shang Dynasties in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Qian praised this in his reply, and at the same time put forward his view of "doubting the past", and further put forward his incisive views on the "Six Classics". He said:
I like studying the so-called "classics" very much, but I am also confused. /kloc-I read Kang Youwei's textual research and Cui's textual research 0/2 years ago, and I know that the so-called "ancient classics" are all forged by people like Liu Xin. Later, after reading Kang Youwei's "Examination of Confucius' Reform", I realized that the facts recorded in the classics are nine times out of ten Confucian "believing in the ancient times" and have no value in believing in history. Recently, I read Ye Shidi's Xue Ji, Yi Shu, Yao Jiheng's General Theory of the Book of Songs, General Theory of the Book of Rites (in the Continued Book of Rites), and Cui Shudi's Textual Research, and all kinds of discussions about "Confused Classics" suddenly realized that I know the "Six Classics" in The Analects of Confucius. Most of the Six Classics have no historical, philosophical or political value.
He stressed that we should dare to "doubt the past", break the traditional view of "testing the six arts" in the study of ancient history, and advocate "the theory of six classics" (25). He also stressed that the study of ancient history and sociology can no longer be based on textual research like previous scholars. To study China's classics, history and Chinese studies, we should not only master scientific methods, but also understand history. For example, in the Chinese Character Revolution and Chinese Character Reform 1923 published by China Language Monthly, it wrote: "The so-called' western culture' by ordinary people is actually the culture of the modern world, not the private property of westerners, but a foresight made by westerners. If China people don't want to be "generated from the outside", they should catch up and learn science, philosophy and so on. If you want to study' Chinese studies', you must know the scientific method (this still has to say' at least'). In fact, if you don't understand modern new literature, you will never be worthy of sorting out China's old literature; If you don't understand history, you will never be worthy of sorting out the history of China. Other analogies). In the future, the business of "national studies" and "sorting out national heritage" should never talk about such nonsense as "preserving the essence of the country" and "promoting the national light." Therefore, not only the "family law" of scholars will be broken, but also the "classics" themselves will be "re-evaluated", because the Thirteen Classics, which have always been regarded as gods, are just "thirteen books that are neither fish nor fowl".