由中国社会科学院和国际哲学团体联合会（FISP）合办的“世纪之交的哲学”学术研讨会于10月8日至9日在北京举行。赵敦华教授应邀在8日的大会上宣读了“西方价值判断现代模式的成因中中国文化因素之考察”的论文。论文的中英文摘要如下。

西方价值判断现代模式的成因中中国文化因素之考察（摘要）

赵敦华（北京大学哲学系）

17至19世纪，是西方人的价值观发生新旧交替的时期，其结果形成了价值判断的现代模式。在此过程中，中国文化被当作西方文化的参照系，它既参与了这一新的价值判断模式的形成，又成为这一模式的一个主要判断对象。这一跨文化的互动过程既比较全面地解释了西方价值判断模式转换的原因，也解释中国文化在西方所遭遇的变化的原因。这一过程包括三个阶段。（1）17世纪耶稣会士引进的儒家伦理动摇了传统的“有神论 / 无神论”的判断模式；（2）18世纪的启蒙学者以中国宗教为“理神论”的典范，按照“理性 / 非理性”的模式进行了“善 / 恶”阵营的重组；（3）

从18世纪后期开始，德国思想家以中国文化为参照，建立了“先进 / 落后”的现代模式；“黑格尔--韦伯”视点是“中国落后”论思想根源。

The Chinese Elements in The Making of Evaluating Models of Modernity
(digest)

Zhao Dunhua (Peking University)

The value system in the West undertook a dramatic change from 17th to 19th century, resulting in the birth of the new evaluating model of modernity. The Chinese culture, as introduced into Europe in this period, played a role of contrasting reference. It participated in causing the transformation of the old model to the new one, but it was also judged by those models at first. The interaction between Chinese and Western cultures interprets not only the birth of modernity in a more broad perspective, but also the reason of the changing attitudes towards China in general, from the equal dialogue in the 17th century, via an idealization in the 18th century, and finally, to the underestimation in the 19th century.
The above change occurred at three stages. (1) The Jesuits evaluated Confucius’ teachings as a non-religious morality, which shaken the traditional model of “theism vs atheism”. (2) The Enlightenment treated the Chinese religion as an ideal example of deism, which led to a re-consideration of the dichotomy of “good vs evil”, and eventually, to the rise of a new model of “reason vs non-reason”. (3) The German idealists, by referring to the backward of China, re-constructed a model of “advanced vs backward” as a result of the dialectical progression of history. Hegel’s comparison between China and German as beginning and end of history and, Weber’s comparison between Confucianism and Purism as capitalism and pre-capitalism, both severed decisively as the application of the “advanced vs backward” model. Since then, what H. Loetz calls the “Hegelian-Weberian perspective” has dominated the western evaluation of China in general.