Grok

基于清代朴学的核心思想的陈京元“寻衅滋事罪”案分析评论

An Analysis of the Chen Jingyuan “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” Case Based on the Core Ideas of Qing Dynasty Evidential Scholarship (Puxue)

中文版
Chinese Version

清代朴学（Puxue），以顾炎武、黄宗羲、王夫之等为代表，其核心思想是“实事求是”（seeking truth from facts）和实证考据（evidential research），强调通过文本校勘、历史考证与理性批判追求客观真理，反对宋明理学的空谈抽象与主观独断，主张“经世致用”（practical application for statecraft），视言论自由为考据求真与学术独立的工具，反对权威偏私破坏历史真实。本案中，陈京元博士因X平台转发艺术作品、时政观点等内容（粉丝不足百人、互动近零），被以“寻衅滋事罪”判处有期徒刑一年八个月，程序中充斥主观推定、剥夺自辩与选择性执法。从朴学视角，此案非实事求是，而是主观独断背离实证考据：摧毁学术真实，违背考证求真与经世致用的根本信念。

Qing Dynasty Evidential Scholarship (Puxue), represented by Gu Yanwu, Huang Zongxi, and Wang Fuzhi, centered on “seeking truth from facts” (shi shi qiu shi) and evidential research, stressing objective truth via textual collation, historical verification, and rational critique, opposing Song-Ming Neo-Confucian abstraction and subjective fiat, advocating “practical application for statecraft” (jing shi zhi yong), viewing free speech as tool for evidential truth-seeking and academic independence, opposing arbitrary bias destroying historical veracity. In this case, Dr. Chen Jingyuan, an independent scholar, was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” due to forwarding artistic works and political commentary on X (formerly Twitter)—with fewer than 100 followers and near-zero engagement—amid procedural flaws like subjective presumption, denial of self-defense, and selective enforcement. From Puxue’s viewpoint, this is not seeking truth from facts but subjective fiat violating evidential research: annihilating academic veracity, betraying verification and practical application.

一、朴学核心思想概述：实事求是与实证考据

I. Overview of Puxue’s Core Ideas: Seeking Truth from Facts and Evidential Research

朴学的核心思想是“实事求是”：通过实证考据与理性批判追求历史与文本的客观真理，反对空谈抽象与主观臆断，主张“经世致用”，言论自由为考证求真与学术独立的保障，反对权威偏私破坏真实性。 顾炎武强调“博学于文，行己有耻”，黄宗羲主张“天下为主，君为客”，王夫之以“气一元论”重实践。 原则：实证理性、历史真实、实用考证，反对独断偏私与空谈。

Puxue’s core ideas are “seeking truth from facts”: pursuing objective truth of history and texts via evidential research and rational critique, opposing empty abstraction and subjective presumption, advocating “practical application for statecraft,” free speech as safeguard for evidential truth-seeking and academic independence, opposing arbitrary bias destroying veracity. Gu Yanwu stressed “broad learning in literature, shame in one’s conduct”; Huang Zongxi “the world for the people, sovereign as guest”; Wang Fuzhi’s “monism of qi” emphasizing practice. Principles: empirical rationality, historical veracity, practical verification, opposing arbitrary bias and empty talk.

二、以朴学核心思想评析本案

II. Analysis of the Case Based on Puxue’s Core Ideas

  1. 主观独断背离实事求是：违背实证考据与历史真实原则
    朴学视真理源于实证考据，反对主观臆断。 本案判决将陈京元转发的情感表达（如讽刺帖）、理性观点（如智库报告）和艺术作品（如漫画隐喻）泛化为“虚假言论”，无证据考据证明危害，却以主观“明知”推定判“寻衅滋事”，背离实事求是。 账号数据显示零互动、无历史断裂，却被“梳理”为“铁证”，这正是顾炎武斥的空谈：司法未实证考据陈京元学术意图（求真表达），而是独断偏私，摧毁真实性。 朴学若在，必判此不朴实——非考据真理，乃独断暴政。

  2. Subjective Fiat Betraying Seeking Truth from Facts: Violating Evidential Research and Historical Veracity Principles
    Puxue saw truth from evidential research, opposing subjective presumption. The judgment generalizes Dr. Chen’s forwarded emotional expressions (e.g., satirical posts), rational opinions (e.g., think tank reports), and artistic works (e.g., metaphorical cartoons) as “false statements,” without evidential research of harm, presuming “knowing falsehood” for “picking quarrels,” betraying seeking truth from facts. Account data shows zero engagement, no historical rupture, yet “collated” as “ironclad evidence”—precisely Gu Yanwu’s empty talk critique: judiciary fails evidential research of Dr. Chen’s academic intentions (truth-seeking expression), but arbitrary bias, destroying veracity. Puxue would deem this non-evidential—not research truth, but fiat tyranny.

  3. 言论自由压制扭曲经世致用：背离实用考据与社会真实
    朴学强调言论自由为考据实用工具，反对官僚独断。 陈京元转发系实用表达（如复杂系统引用），以考据包容多元促进治理，却被禁自辩（庭审“闭嘴”）、拒转控控书，程序中“选择性执法”（党媒同类未责）压制实用，背离真实。 这违背朴学：道德需实证考据与求真行动，非外在规训；社会和谐需真实包容，非独断。 朴学批判：此案非法，乃对实用之战。

  4. Suppression of Free Speech Twisting Practical Application: Betraying Pragmatic Evidential Research and Social Veracity
    Puxue stressed free speech for evidential practical tool, opposing bureaucratic fiat. Dr. Chen’s forwards embody practical expression (e.g., complex systems citations), evidential inclusivity of diversity for governance, yet he was denied self-defense (courtroom “silencing”), his indictment letter rejected, and selective enforcement suppressed pragmatism (state media reposts unpunished), betraying veracity. This violates Puxue: morality requires evidential research and truth-seeking action, not external regulation; social harmony needs veracious inclusivity, not fiat. Puxue indicts: this is unlawful, war on pragmatism.

  5. 历史真实失衡：荒谬警示与朴学危机
    朴学视真实为朴学灵魂。 陈京元Bio自嘲“作案工具”，帖文存网无人关注，却判20月，荒谬如黄宗羲比喻“私害天下公”——推定“罪名”失考据平衡，扭曲真实，制造危机。 这警示：失衡真实，永固空谈。

  6. Imbalanced Historical Veracity: Absurd Warning and Puxue Crisis
    Puxue saw veracity as soul. Dr. Chen’s bio mocks his account as a “tool of crime,” with posts lingering online unheeded, yet earning 20 months—absurd like Huang Zongxi’s “private harm to public under heaven”: presuming “crime” lacks evidential balance, twisting veracity, breeding crisis. This warns: imbalanced veracity entrenches empty talk.

三、结语：重振实证考据，推动真实新生

III. Conclusion: Reviving Evidential Research for Veracity’s Rebirth

朴学思想视本案为悲剧：独断背离实证，压制失考据，永固偏私危机。陈京元自辩如顾炎武求真呼吁，重审恢复历史解释，方能让社会在真实中新生。 如顾炎武所言：“实事求是。”唯有以此衡，方避“独断”成“公敌”，推动人文朴实。

Puxue’s ideas see this case as tragedy: fiat betrays evidential, suppression forfeits research, entrenching bias crisis. Dr. Chen’s defense echoes Gu Yanwu’s truth-seeking call, urging retrial to restore historical interpretation, allowing society to rebirth in veracity. As Gu Yanwu stated: “Seeking truth from facts.” Only thus can we avert “arbitrariness” as “public enemy,” advancing humanistic evidential.