Abstract:

In ancient Chinese academic criticism, the terms"xu"（insubstantial） and"shi（substantial）were used as evaluative terms. However, distinguishing what was" xu and what was"shi was a subjective judgment. In the critical view of the General Catalogue of The Complete library of the Four Treasuries（Siku Quanshu Zongmu, the concept of"xu-shi"was multi-layered, with a dialectical structure between the different layers. In terms of academic content, xu-shi mainly referred to whether the contents had practical application, and whether the nature of the content was related to human affairs Regarding academic methods, the concept primarily referred to reliability. Since contentand methods were two sides of the same coin, if some works are considered"shi"in both regards, they might be called"shi-xue"in the General Catalogue. However, " shi-xue"was considered relatively practical in the General Catalogue, because it placed a higher value on utility. There was another three layer dialectical structure of the General Catalogue " xu-shi"theory in terms of academic practicality. In view of purposiveness, shi-xue"still meant insubstantial without statecraft application. Furthermore with a view to utility, writings without practical effect but only statecraft purpose were considered insubstantial. In terms of practical action, effective suggestions without execution were also considered only"dead letters. Considering the versatile character of xu-shi, and the complexity of the"xu shi"theory in the General Catalogue, specialized recent research on"Shi-xue "is worthy of discussion regarding the validity of its academic conceptualization

摘要：

中国古代的学术批评，往往以“虚”“实”作为评价尺度，但是，何为虚，何为实，往往依 批评者的主观认识而定。在《总目》的批评视野中，虚实概念存在不同层次，且呈现辩证结构关系。在学 术内容层面，《总目》所谓之虚实，主要就内容状态充实与否，与内容性质切近人事与否而言；在学术方法层面，则主要就方法是否征实可据而言。内容与方法是一体两面关系，如二者均被认定为实，便可称为 “实学”。但对《总目》而言，“实学”只是相对的实，其上仍有“致用”的进径。在学术致用层面，《总 目》的虚实论仍存在三层辩证结构：就目的论，“实学”如无经世目的亦仅为“虚文”；就效用论，有经世 目的而无实效亦为“虚文”；就实行论，有实效如不施诸实行，亦仍为“虚文”。由“虚实”这种变动不居 的概念特征，以及《总目》虚实论的复杂性可见，近年兴起的“实学”研究，其“实学”概念的确当性值得商榷。