鲁迅思想【通用3篇】
鲁迅思想 篇一：反抗与启示
鲁迅是中国现代文学史上的伟大作家和思想家，他的思想深深地影响了中国近现代的文化和社会发展。鲁迅思想的核心是对封建社会及其文化的批判和反抗，以及对人性的深刻触摸和启示。本文将从鲁迅思想的反抗和启示两个方面进行阐述。
首先，鲁迅的思想具有强烈的反抗精神。在封建社会的压迫下，鲁迅对于封建文化的批判是毫不妥协的。他揭示了封建社会的黑暗和腐朽，直言不讳地批评了封建文化的愚昧和迷信。他通过自己的作品，如《狂人日记》和《阿Q正传》，向读者展示了封建社会中人们的苦难和无奈。他用尖锐的笔触和犀利的语言，揭示了封建社会的虚伪和残酷，并发出了反抗的呐喊。这种反抗精神激励了一代又一代的人们，引发了对封建社会及其文化的思考和批判。
其次，鲁迅的思想给予了人们深刻的启示。他通过对人性的透彻观察，揭示了人性的丑陋和自私。他认为人性中存在着矛盾和冲突，这种矛盾和冲突是封建社会的产物。他通过对封建社会中人们的描写，展示了人性的种种弱点和缺陷。他的作品中的人物形象，如阿Q和白娘子，都是对人性的深刻剖析。这种启示性的观察让人们认识到了自己的问题和缺陷，促使着他们反思和改变。
鲁迅思想的反抗和启示不仅仅局限于文学领域，也深刻地影响了社会和文化的发展。鲁迅的思想为中国近现代的社会变革提供了理论支撑和精神动力。他的思想启发了一批又一批的进步人士，他们通过各种形式的抵制和反抗，推动了中国社会的变革。鲁迅思想的反抗精神和启示力量是不可忽视的，它对于中国的现代化进程具有重要的意义。
总之，鲁迅思想的反抗和启示是其最重要的特征。通过对封建社会及其文化的批判和反抗，鲁迅揭示了社会的黑暗和腐朽；通过对人性的深刻触摸和启示，鲁迅让人们认识到了自己的问题和缺陷。这种反抗和启示不仅仅是文学领域的现象，也深刻地影响了社会和文化的发展。鲁迅思想的反抗精神和启示力量是中国近现代历史中不可忽视的一部分。
鲁迅思想 篇二：启迪与引领
鲁迅是中国现代文学史上的一位伟大作家和思想家，他的思想对中国近现代的文化和社会发展产生了深远的影响。鲁迅思想的核心是对封建社会及其文化的批判和反抗，以及对人性的深刻触摸和启示。本文将从鲁迅思想的启迪和引领两个方面进行阐述。
首先，鲁迅的思想具有启迪的力量。他通过对社会现实和人性的深入观察，揭示了封建社会的种种弊端和问题。他的作品，如《狂人日记》和《阿Q正传》，通过对社会现象和人物形象的刻画，让人们对封建社会的黑暗和腐朽有了更为清晰的认识。他的批判性思维和独立的精神激发了人们对社会现象的思考和质疑，为社会的进步和改革提供了理论支撑和思想动力。
其次，鲁迅的思想具有引领的作用。他通过对人性的深刻触摸和剖析，让人们认识到了自己的问题和缺陷。他揭示了人性中的矛盾和冲突，认为这种矛盾和冲突是封建社会的产物。他的作品中的人物形象，如阿Q和白娘子，都是对人性的深刻剖析，让人们意识到了自己的虚伪和自私。这种引领性的思想让人们反思和改变，促进了社会的发展和进步。
鲁迅思想的启迪和引领不仅仅局限于文学领域，也深刻地影响了社会和文化的发展。鲁迅的思想为中国近现代的社会变革提供了理论支撑和精神动力。他的思想启发了一批又一批的进步人士，他们通过各种形式的抵制和反抗，推动了中国社会的变革。鲁迅思想的启迪和引领力量是不可忽视的，它对于中国的现代化进程具有重要的意义。
总之，鲁迅思想的启迪和引领是其最重要的特征。通过对封建社会及其文化的批判和反抗，鲁迅揭示了社会的黑暗和腐朽；通过对人性的深刻触摸和启示，鲁迅让人们认识到了自己的问题和缺陷。这种启迪和引领不仅仅是文学领域的现象，也深刻地影响了社会和文化的发展。鲁迅思想的启迪和引领力量是中国近现代历史中不可忽视的一部分。
鲁迅思想 篇三
在有关鲁迅思想的研究中，大量的成果集中在“改造国民性”问题上。冯骥才在《收获》上发表的《鲁迅的“功”与“过”》中认为，鲁迅作品的成功之处即在于独特的“国民性批判”，“在鲁迅之前的文学史上，我们还找不到这种先例”，但这不过是“源自１８４０年以来西方传教士”的舶来品，鲁迅从中受到了启发和点拨，却没有看到里面所埋伏着的西方霸权话语。冯骥才进而认为鲁迅没能走出“西方中心主义”和被西方人认作经典的以审丑为主要特征的“东方主义”的磁场。这一度引起了学者们的激烈争鸣。陈漱渝在《由〈收获〉风波引发的思考》和《挑战经典——新时期关于鲁迅的几次论争》中认为，鲁迅改造国民性思想形成过程中，的确受到美国传教士亚瑟·亨·史密斯《中国人气质》一书的影响。然而，“鲁迅展示中国人的丑陋面，并非印证西方侵略者征服东方的合理性和合法性，而是在展示种种丑陋的过程中渗透了作家的忧患意识和否定性评价，使读者在否定性的体验中获得审美愉悦。”黄川在《亚瑟·亨·史密斯与东方主义》中重点分析了“东方主义”一词的含义和史密斯《中国人气质》一书的详细情况，指出冯骥才把“东方主义”加之于鲁迅的头上是“轻率的、不科学的”。
In the study of Lu Xun's thought, a lot of achievements are focused on the problem of "transforming national character". In Lu Xun's "merits" and "faults" published by Feng Jicai in the harvest, the success of Lu Xun's works lies in his unique "criticism of national character". We can't find such a precedent in the literary history before Lu Xun, but it's just an imported product from "Western missionaries since 1840", from which Lu Xun was inspired and pointed out, but he didn't We can see the western hegemonic discourse lurking in it. Feng Jicai went on to think that Lu Xun failed to get rid of the "western centralism" and the "Orientalism" which was regarded as the classic by the westerners and characterized by judging ugliness. At one time, this aroused fierce contention among scholars. Chen Shuyu, in his reflections caused by the storm of "harvest" and "challenging Classics: several debates on Lu Xun in the new era", believes that Lu Xun's thought of transforming national character was indeed influenced by the book "Chinese temperament" by Arthur Heng Smith, an American missionary. However, "Lu Xun's display of the ugliness of the Chinese people does not confirm the rationality and legitimacy of the western invaders' conquest of the East, but permeates the writer's sense of suffering and negative evaluation in the process of displaying all kinds of ugliness, so that the readers can get aesthetic pleasure in the negative experience." In Arthur Heng Smith and Orientalism, Huang Chuan analyzed the meaning of Orientalism and the details of Smith's temperament of Chinese. He pointed out that Feng Jicai's adding Orientalism to Lu Xun's head was "rash and unscientific".
由论争引发，对国民性问题的研究被导入了十分广泛、深刻的领域。对于鲁迅国民性批判思想形成的渊源，日本学者北冈正子的《鲁迅改造国民性思想的由来》以翔实的史料证实：鲁迅留日时期与许寿裳关于国民性的探讨，是受到当时弘文学院院长加纳治五郎与中国学者杨度关于国民性讨论的直接触动。潘世圣的《关于鲁迅的早期论文及改造国民性思想》认为，“青年鲁迅的改造国民性思想问题，其实与近代西方，明治日本，他的先辈思想家如梁启超以及与他同时代的留日学生有着多样的联系，鲁迅的思想很大程度上反映着他的时代，他的周边世界的精神倾向。”王学谦在《精神创伤的升华——“鲁迅改造国民性”思想形成的心理因素》中指出，幼时的家庭变故使鲁迅的心灵受到严重创伤，直接影响了鲁迅人生道路的选择，并促成了其改造国民性的思想。程致中在《鲁迅国民性批判探源》中认为，鲁迅改造国民性思想的形成不是偶然的，也不是某一单方面的影响，而是多种因素的综合，包括资产阶级启蒙思想家的影响，西方启蒙思想的影响，有关国民性的讨论的影响，外国人研究中国国民性的着作的影响以及对中国传统文化的痛切反省和刻骨铭心的生命体验的影响等等。袁盛勇的《国民性批判的困惑》则认为，鲁迅的改造国民性思想主要源于一种强烈的自省意识，他看到了我们国人的“古老鬼魂中”还有一个“我”，因而，“鲁迅的国民性话语是一种自我在场的启蒙话语……他把自己拽进话语语场的同时，也一并让读者沉入其间，在自我反省中杀出一条生路”。尹康庄的《鲁迅的民众观》指出，鲁迅“致力终身的改造国民性思想与实践的逻辑起点”，是鲁迅对民众的“否定与肯定之间所形成的悖论”。方长安的《鲁迅立人思想与日本文化》认为，鲁迅的改造国民性是和立人思想紧密结合在一起的，这深受日本显性文化与隐性文化亦即现代文化与传统文化的影响。
Triggered by the controversy, the study of national character has been introduced into a very wide and profound field. As for the origin of Lu Xun's critical thought of national character, Japanese scholar Masako kitoka's "the origin of Lu Xun's thought of transforming national character" proves with detailed historical data that the discussion on national character between Lu Xun and Xu shouchang during his stay in Japan was directly touched by the discussion on national character between the president of Hongwen University at that time, kanachi Wulang, and Chinese scholar Yang Du. Pan Shisheng's "on Lu Xun's early thesis and the thought of transforming national character" holds that "the problem of young Lu Xun's thought of transforming national character is actually related to the modern West, Meiji Japan, his predecessors such as Liang Qichao and his students studying in Japan at the same time. Lu Xun's thought largely reflects the spiritual tendency of his era and his surrounding world. ”Wang Xueqia
鲁迅改造国民性思想研究的深化还表现在“鲁迅改造中国国民性思想研讨会”的举行。这一学术会议是由汪卫东的《鲁迅国民性批判的内在逻辑系统》和竹潜民的《中国国民性“密码”和“原点”探秘——兼与汪卫东先生商榷》争鸣文章引起。前文认为中国国民性“原点”和“密码”以“私欲中心”四字概括，后文表示了不同意见，认为中国国民性的“原点”和“密码”应是“自欺欺人”。陈越认为汪卫东的“私欲中心”失之太泛，竹潜民的“自欺欺人”不是“对国民性劣根性表现的深层原点的概括”。周楠本指出，“自欺欺人”说实际已包含于“精神胜利法”中，而“私欲中心”是和“精神胜利法”一样的国民劣根性表现，因而“原点”和“密码”的提出并无多少新意。张恩和和林非都肯定了从“私欲中心”和“自欺欺人”入手探讨鲁迅改造国民性思想的积极意义，特别认为以“自欺欺人”为中心展开对国民性弊端的分析是“颇有道理的”。但对国民劣根性的形成，他们都认为原因不是别的，而是封建专制制度和绝对权力统治的结果，“在这样严格的等级制度的规范和限制下，怎么能不产生退守、懒惰、卑怯、奴性、虚伪巧滑、自欺欺人等各种各样的国民性”（张恩和语）。钱理群的论点有三：一、鲁迅改造国民性思想的提出是从中国的现实出发，不是外来思潮的移植；二、改造国民性问题涉及对民众的看法，鲁迅一向把民众分成两类，即“厥心纯白”的朴素之民和“在名教斧钺底下”失去了天性的“无名主无意识的杀人团”，鲁迅的批判锋芒主要指向后者；三、对“真”与“诚”的倡导，对“伪”的批判是鲁迅一生的命题。孙玉石认为，鲁迅的改造国民性思想，他的“揭出病苦，引起疗救的注意”的创作动因，继承了历史上一切优秀文学传统拥有的“大爱与大憎结合的精神”，体现的是文学创作的永恒的主题，因而孤立地研究鲁迅改造国民性思想的“密码”与“原点”，“没有什么真正的学术意义”。孙玉石提出应当特别尊重鲁迅作为文学家的思想家的“独特性”，这就是：“他是以自己的直接感悟与无休止批判来辐射他的思想能量，而不是在逻辑系统的思考中来论证他的思想凝结的。他追求关注的一贯性，批判的直击性却不一定有哲学家思想的严密性。”
The deepening of the research on Lu Xun 's thought of transforming the national character is also reflected in the holding of the seminar on Lu Xun' s thought of transforming the national character of China. This academic conference is caused by the contending articles of Wang Weidong's "the internal logic system of Lu Xun's criticism of national character" and Zhu qianmin's "exploration of the" code "and" origin "of Chinese national character - and discussion with Mr. Wang Weidong". The former thought that the "origin" and "code" of Chinese national character are summarized in the four words of "selfish desire center", and the latter expressed different opinions, and thought that the "origin" and "code" of Chinese national character should be "self deception". Chen Yue thinks that Wang Weidong's "center of selfish desire" is too extensive, and that the "self deception" of bamboo potential people is not "a summary of the deep origin of the performance of the national bad nature". Zhou nanben pointed out that the theory of "self deception" was actually included in the "spiritual victory law", while the "selfish desire center" was the same as the "spiritual victory law" in the performance of national evil, so the "origin" and "code" were not much new. Zhang en and Lin Fei both affirmed the positive significance of exploring Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character from the perspective of "selfish desire center" and "self deception", especially thought that it was "reasonable" to analyze the malpractice of national character with "self deception" as the center. However, for the formation of the national inferiority, they all think that the reason is not something else, but the result of the feudal autocracy and absolute power rule. "How can we not produce a variety of national characteristics, such as retreat, laziness, cowardice, servility, hypocrisy, cleverness, self deception and so on, under such a strict hierarchy of norms and restrictions" (Zhang Enhe). Qian Liqun's arguments are as follows: first, Lu Xun's idea of transforming national character is based on China's reality, not the transplantation of foreign thoughts; second, the problem of transforming national character involves his views on the people. Lu Xun has always pided the people into two categories: the simple people with "pure heart" and the "unknown Master's unconscious killing group" who lost their nature under the famous axe axe axe, Lu Xun Third, to advocate "truth" and "sincerity", to criticize "false" is Lu Xun's lifelong proposition. Sun Yushi believes that Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character, his creative motivation of "exposing the suffering and arousing the attention of healing", inherits the "spirit of combining love and hatred" possessed by all the excellent literary traditions in history, embodies the eternal theme of literary creation, and studies the "code" and "origin" of Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character in isolation, so there is nothing Real academic significance ". Sun Yushi proposed that Lu Xun's "uniqueness" as a literary thinker should be specially respected, which is: "he radiates his thought energy with his own direct perception and endless criticism, rather than demonstrates his thought condensation in the thinking of logical system. He pursues the consistency of concern, but the directness of criticism does not necessarily have the strictness of philosopher's thought. "
