| 中和并非折中主义 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 坚毅.中和并非折中主义[J].南昌航空大学学报,2004,6(1):35-38. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 坚毅 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 江西省社会科学院 江西南昌330077 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 长期以来 ,中和是被列入批判之列的 ,原因之一就是把它视为折中主义。实际上 ,中和并非折中主义 ,它有着存在的余地和一定的合理性。我们要承认中和的存在和价值 ,这是中国哲学史上的精华之一 ,当然也不可以把它绝对化
|
| 关 键 词： | 中和 折中主义 中国哲学史 |
| 文章编号： | 1009-1912(2004)01-0035-04 |
| 修稿时间： | 2003年10月20 |
Neutralization is not eclecticism |
| |
| JIAN Yi.Neutralization is not eclecticism[J].Journal of Nanchang Institute of Aeronautical Technology(Social Science),2004,6(1):35-38. |
| |
| Authors: | JIAN Yi |
| |
| Abstract: | Neutralization has long been criticized partly for its being taken as eclecticism. In fact, the former is not eclecticism and there is room for its existence due to its rationality. As the essence of Chinese philosophical history, the existence and value of neutralization should be acknowledged. Yet it can not be viewed as something absolute. |
| |
| Keywords: | Neutralization Eclecticism Chinese philosophical history |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
|
