摘要： 当前，中国自主知识体系建设与全球史学经历深刻变革的双重背景下，思想史研究迎来了议题扩展与范式更新，“新思想史”何以酝酿、成形与再出发，是透视一个国家、社会与文明的重要环节。尤其在数字技术时代，如何审视思想史研究中的经典议题，怎样推进传统观念与新式研究之间的互动与融合，都是值得挖掘和探究的基本命题。葛兆光教授修订再版的《中国思想史》，就是回应这一命题的理论力作，在概念提炼、研究范式与史料方法等方面引发了持续的对话和思考，为推动中国思想史研究的深化与创新提供了又一次契机。2025年10月和11月，上海市社会科学界联合会、商务印书馆、复旦大学，上海师范大学等单位先后主办《中国思想史·修订本》两场首发式暨学术研讨会，多位专家围绕《中国思想史》如何重建思想史写法、思想史研究的意义以及修订本的特点与新变化展开研讨，试图重新审视中国思想的历史脉络与跨文明对话的可能性。在此基础上，《探索与争鸣》编辑部邀请专家学者展开专题研讨，以《中国思想史》修订版为契机，旨在回到思想史研究的根本问题，探讨理论前沿、范式创新、跨学科实践以及中国思想史的世界意义，力图从本土意识、价值关切与书写范式等多元维度，构建具有典范意义的思想史对话。
虞云国教授在“范式革命”意义上梳理了中国思想史自古至今的演进轨迹与学术自觉，提出《中国思想史》在史料学层面实现了前所未有的大幅度推进，在写法上摆脱了经典体式的制约，体现了独有的方法、角度与价值。李剑鸣教授围绕思想史的书写方法展开讨论，强调思想史应回归历史学本位，关注文本与语境的互动。一流的思想史家应致力于超乎具体历史著述之上的“元史学”，对历史如何成为史学予以学理演示。郁振华教授从当前人文学科普遍遭遇的危机出发，将思想史的写作视为一项捍卫人类基本价值的事业。他指出，中国思想的现代转型，实质上是传统价值系统向现代价值系统的整体性转换，这一进程关乎中国心灵的尊严与未来。郭长刚研究员从文明互鉴的视角出发，指出中国古代文明与世界重要古代文明在源起上有共通之处——基于对人与人关系的思考，形成宇宙知识、社会秩序和个人存在的思想体系，中国思想史具有“普遍性”意义。梁展研究员指出，近代中国知识分子面对外部世界存在着普遍主义/世界主义与特殊主义/民族主义的论争，这是全球思想世界的普遍现象。思想史研究的意义在于将知识、制度和文化的变迁与历史中人的观察、体验、思考和行动勾连起来。王东杰教授提出“不思的思想史”这一概念，认为“一般知识、思想与信仰”正是一种“不思之思”，思想史的任务正在于使这些“不思”显影为可反思的对象。陈小文教授认为，“一般知识、思想与信仰世界”范式的提出，将思想史的视野从精英拓展到了整体，从短时段拓展到了长时段，从有意识的文本拓展到了无意识的史料，在根本上重构了中国思想史的研究格局。

Abstract: Against the dual backdrop of the current construction of an independent knowledge system in China and the profound transformations in global historiography, the study of intellectual history is witnessing an expansion of topics and an updating of paradigms. Especially in an era marked by the rise of digital technology and artificial intelligence, how to examine the classic issues in the study of intellectual history and how to promote the interaction and integration between traditional concepts and new research methods are fundamental propositions worthy of in-depth exploration. In response, the academic community has seen many thought-provoking discussions. Professor Ge Zhaoguang’s revised and republished History of Chinese Thought is a seminal theoretical work that addresses this proposition. It has sparked ongoing dialogue and reflection on conceptual refinement, research paradigms, and historical methods, providing a new opportunity to advance the deepening and innovation of Chinese intellectual history. Thus, we invited experts and scholars to hold a special symposium, taking the republication of History of Chinese Thought as an opportunity to return to the fundamental issues of intellectual history research. The symposium aimed to explore theoretical frontiers, paradigm innovation, interdisciplinary practices, and the global significance of Chinese intellectual history, striving to construct a paradigmatic dialogue in intellectual history from multiple dimensions, including local consciousness, value concerns, and writing paradigms.
　　Professor Yu Yunguo, in the sense of a “paradigm revolution”, traces the evolutionary trajectory and academic self-awareness of Chinese intellectual history from antiquity to the present. Professor Li Jianming discusses the writing methods of intellectual history, emphasizing that it should return to the disciplinary foundation of history and focus on the interaction between text and context. Professor Yu Zhenhua points out that the modern transformation of Chinese thought is essentially a holistic shift from a traditional value system to a modern one, a process that concerns the dignity and future of the Chinese mind. Researcher Guo Changgang notes that ancient Chinese civilization shares common origins with other major ancient civilizations of the world, and that Chinese intellectual history is not an isolated existence but possesses “universal” significance. Researcher Liang Zhan observes that the significance of intellectual history research lies not only in sorting out those changed consciousness, imaginations, and writings, but also in connecting the changes in knowledge, institutions, and culture with the observations, experiences, thoughts, and actions of people in history. Professor Wang Dongjie proposes the concept of “the intellectual history of the unthought”, arguing that “general knowledge, thought, and belief” is precisely a kind of “unthought thought”, and that the task of intellectual history is to make this “unthought” visible as an object of reflection. Professor Chen Xiaowen believes that the proposal of the “general knowledge, thought, and belief world” paradigm fundamentally reconstructing the research pattern of Chinese intellectual history.