Ku Chieh-kang is one of the most important historians in modern history of China. He put forward the idea of ‘Ku-shih-pien’ and made a great contribution to the transformation of traditional Chinese scholarship. By investigating the text of The Preface to the First Book of a Symposium on Ku-shih-pien, this reasearch finds that Ku Chieh-kang's thinking on Chinese ancient history was shaped by his own personality and experiences: he showed a keen interest in history and a strong spirit of critical questioning in his childhood, and was able to explore his various interests consciously, firmly establishing his belief in academics as his vocation. The years of study in Peking University helped him to complete his scholarly accumulation. Along with his long-term efforts, the idea of Ku-shih-pien was finally developed. Ku Chieh-kang's experience is a reflection of most Chinese scholars of his time, and the examination of the first half of his life helps us to deepen our understanding of the mentality of intellectuals in the Republican of China period.

Zhang Ting. Academics as the Profession: A Historical Study of the First Half of Ku Chieh-kang's Life. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2023) Vol. 6, Issue 16: 123-128. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2023.061618.

[1] Peng Guoliang. An Epistemological Analysis of Ku Chieh-kang's Historiographical Thought. PhD Thesis, College of History and Culture, Shandong University, 2007. pp. 13-17.

[2] Ku Chieh-kang. The Preface to a Symposium on Ku-shih-pien, which is referenced in this article, is an extract from The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Beijing: Hebei Education Press, 1996. pp. 419-515.

[3] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 423.

[4] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 424.

[5] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 427.

[6] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 427-429.

[7] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 429.

[8] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 433.

[9] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 430.

[10] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 432.It should be noted that in traditional Chinese Confucian education, Zheng Xuan's commentary is considered to be the most authoritative

[11] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 434.

[12] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 435.

[13] Lian Rong. Developmental and Educational Psychology. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2018. p. 15.

[14] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 436.

[15] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 436-437.

[16] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 440-443.

[17] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 445.

[18] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 451.

[19] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 449.

[20] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 452.

[21] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 422.

[22] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 455.

[23] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 467.

[24] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 471.

[25] Ku Chieh-kang. The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 491.

[26] The Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship: Ku Chieh-kang Volume. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 1996. p. 496.

[27] Max Weber, Academia and Politics, translated by Feng Keli, Beijing: Life, Reading and New Knowledge, 1998, p. 30

[28] Hu Fengxiang, Modern Chinese Historical Thought and Schools (1840-1949) - Middle Edition, Beijing: Commercial Press, 2019