在中共立國前夕，擺在馮友蘭等「大知識分子」面前，本來有留在大陸、赴臺或去國這三條道路可走，而馮友蘭和絕大多數大知識分子選擇了留在大陸。從歷史家的「後見之明」來看，他們的抉擇，不僅使他們在中共治下身心飽受摧殘，而且也造成了中國學術文化史上的巨大斷層，無疑是「一著之差，全盤皆輸」，稱之為「集體失誤」並不為過。但若回到當時的歷史環境，留大陸接受中共的統治，又是被絕大多數大知識分子普遍認為對自己、對民族、對國家前途都最為有利的選擇，而馮友蘭作此抉擇時，更充分運用其理性和常識，對各種有利和不利的因素都作了慎重周詳的評估。本文的第二部分〈「去」或「留」的抉擇〉，指出從當時軍事、政治、經濟等多重因素，都顯示了國府在中國大陸的失敗已成定局，而馮友蘭和其他的大知識分子，亦早已對國府徹底絕望；為了不願當白華、不願為國府殉葬，留在大陸對他們是最好的選擇。文章中還特別從馮友蘭本人對清華大學、對中國文化的責任感，以及他對自己和自己哲學系統的未來前途的「自我感覺良好」，較深入地剖析了他選擇留平的心理因素和時代背景。 本文的第三部分〈「集體失誤」〉，首先，指出了造成馮友蘭等大知識分子「集體失誤」的二個主要原因︰其一是低估了國府的生存能力，其二是高估了中共的理性。正是這兩個具有高度不確定性的變項在後來的發展出乎了所有人的預料，使得馮友蘭和絕大部分大知識分子一起掉進了中共改造思想的網羅。其次，論文還指出思想改造的實質，正是要把知識分子改造成中共的「馴服工具」。再次，論文還著重分析了中共藉以改造知識分子的兩種手法︰其一是通過控制全部生活資料和毫不留情地使用恐怖和暴力，從外部施以高壓；其二是通過壟斷道德資源和獨佔真理，從內心加以誘逼。這種無比強大的自力和他力的內外交煎，是任何凡人的血肉之軀無法抗拒的。在中共一波未平一波又起的思想改造運動的長期煎熬之下，中國知識分子從精神到肉體都不免飽受摧殘。最後，論文還指出了馮友蘭在思想改造運動中吃苦最多的根本原因，乃緣於被毛澤東挑選為全國性的「反面教員」，如此一來便使他在歷次運動中成了大批判的眾矢之的。他必須公開地自我誣蔑和自我否定自己的一切，這不僅使他身心受盡折磨，而由其一手創造的新理學系統，也因之灰飛煙滅。本文第四部分〈餘論〉，則著重評述馮友蘭在文革結束後恢復舊業和恢復自我的成績及其限制。

　　　　　On the eve of the Chinese Communist take-over, the great Chinese intellectuals faced only three alternatives: remaining in Mainland China, escaping to Taiwan, or going abroad. Like most, Feng Youlan chose to stay in Mainland China and thus shared the intellectuals' common destiny of physical torture, spiritual suffocation, and public humiliations. Some historians consider that the choice of most Chinese intellectuals, which marks a dramatic fault-line in the cultural history of Chinese academia, was a "collective misjudgment.'' By analyzing the socio-political situation on the eve of the Communist victory, this paper explains why most great Chinese intellectuals in general, and Feng Youlan in particular, believed that they had made the best choice both for their own country and for themselves. These people had long given up hope in the KMT and did not want to sacrifice themselves for the Nationalist government. Due to underestimating the viability of the KMT in Taiwan and overestimating the rationality of the CCP on the Mainland, Feng Youlan and most of his great intellectual counterparts fell into the Communist pitfall and were forced to be targets of thought reform movements. Since Feng was designated by Chairman Mao as a negative example of a teacher (fanmian jiaoyuan) in thought reform movements, he had to at the same time undergo a process of endless public humiliations and a process of endless self-criticism. In the former, Feng was often furiously criticized and attacked by his colleagues and students for his "idealist thought'' and his "poisonous teachings.'' In the latter, Feng had to admit to all alleged crimes such as being an idealist, a reactionary, a counterrevolutionary, and a revisionist, as well as to deny that he himself and his philosophy had ever done any good for his country and his people. After the decline of class struggle and the fading of Maoism in 1980s, Feng stopped self-criticism and resumed his academic career. He left us seven volumes of his rewritten book called A History of Chinese Philosophy as well as his autobiography before his death in 1990. This paper depicts Feng's self-criticism and self-reestablishment, explores his psychological conflicts in being a negative example of a teacher, and evaluates his academic achievements and limitations.