「五四」期間，胡適（1891-1962）與李大釗（1889-1927）進行的「問題與主義」論辯，就事後中國政治與思想的演變來看，可說是20 世紀20-40 年代馬列毛式的共產革命思潮漸次席捲中國之成因、性質與過程的發端與徵兆。歷來中外學界對此歷史性論辯，論述不知凡幾，早是老生常談的論題。然而，仔細考察論辯的文本（texts）與其他相關的材料以後，作者發現，文本雖然觸及到了一點20 世紀現代性核心危機（自由與獨裁的問題，特別是中央計畫［central planning］的後果）的邊沿；胡李兩人，事實上，並未能悟識到論辯本身所涉及的世紀性危機所蘊含的可能的重大後果。因此，胡李兩人在論辯中真實的立場與見解應該放置在什麼位置上來觀察、評價，遂成為重要而困難的課題，也常為評論者、研究者不察不見。換言之，這場論辯是齣未落幕的劇，有待觀聆後續的接幕。拙文循此途徑，試圖提出與過去中外學界對此論辯解釋的不同「新解」。由於胡適在1954 年公開聲明，他因受海耶克（Friedrich A. Hayek, 1899-1992）影響，深以今是昨非，放棄了過去許多關鍵性的思想見解，轉而支持資本主義與自由主義具有密切關係的看法；拙文不但分析、比較海耶克與胡適兩人相關思想，是否正如胡適「懺悔」、「洗腦」所言，同時也借用海耶克的思想學說，檢討「問題與主義」論辯的真正歷史含意，詳人所略。概括言之，拙文試圖將「問題與主義」論辯放在20 世紀世界史現代性危機的脈絡中加以透視、評論；希望還「問題與主義」論辯本來的面目。此外，拙文經由分析胡適一生有關自由與獨裁的思想主張，也試圖重釋、重現胡適自由主義的原貌。

For decades, the debate between Hu Shih (1891-1962) and Li Dazhao(1889-1927) on “problems and isms” during the May Fourth period has attractedmuch scholarly attention. Judging from the historical hindsight of Chinese politicaland intellectual developments of 1920s through 1940s, the debate wassymptomatic of the causes, characteristics and process of the increasing popularityof Chinese Marxism-Leninism (and, later, Maoism) in the Chinese intelligentsia,an intellectual-political trend which provided much resources for the legitimacy ofthe Chinese Communist revolution.Yet, few previous studies have penetrated into the crux of the debate, dueprimarily to the complex ambiguities of the arguments of both Hu Shih and LiDazhao. Hu Shih was conventionally known to be the leader of Chinese liberalism.However, Hu owed his version of liberalism much to John Dewey’sexperimentalism and instrumentalism, which was quite sanguine about usingpolitical institutions and power for social experiments. Like many other Deweyanintellectuals, Hu remained sympathetic to Soviet “experiments” until 1940s.This essay argues, however, that the debate has implicated a central crisis ofmodernity in the twentieth-century—i.e. the issue of liberal democracy under therule of law vs. dictatorship (central planning in particular) — of which neither HuShih or Li Dazhao was clearly aware. In other words, this debate was an on-goingenterprise awaiting further development, and I offer a new interpretation by elucidating its distinct features and significance in the context of the crisis ofmodernity in the world. To be more specific, as Hu Shih claimed in 1954 that,having recently been influenced by Friedrich A. Hayek, he had given up many ofhis long-held ideas and turned to support the thesis that there is a close workingrelation between liberal democracy and capitalism. I have not only compared theideas of Hu and Hayek but also examined the debate on “problems and isms” inthe light of Hayek’s position. In addition, after thus examining Hu Shih’s ideas regarding liberty and dictatorship, I have reconstituted and re-interpreted the liberalism of Hu Shih.