頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論李澤厚的「西體中用說」--一個唯物主義者對中國文化的評價=On Li Zhe Hou's “Idea of Western Essence, Chinese Practice”--A Materialist's Evaluation of Traditional Chinese Culture |
---|---|
作 者 | 溫帶維; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
卷 期 | 29:3=334 2002.03[民91.03] |
頁 次 | 頁218-231+293-294 |
分類號 | 128 |
關鍵詞 | 李澤厚; 西體中用; 宋明理學; 馬克思主義; 辨證唯物主義; 中國文化的特質; 內聖外王; 仁學; 實用理性; Li Zhe Hou; Western essence; Chinese practice; Neo-confucianism; Marxism; Dialectical materialism; The characteristics of Chinese culture; Internal sanctification and external kingship; Doctrine of jen; Practical reason; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 李澤厚先生在其《中國古代思想史論》及《中國現代思想史論》中提出了其「西體中用」的觀念。作為一個典形的辨証唯物主義者,他對中國傳統文化所肯定的實有別於傳統對自身的肯定,這也就顯示出中國傳統文化思想的精神面貌與辨証唯物主義的精神面貌實在是格格不入的。 李氏認為除了社會現實及個別的知識分子外,中國思想發展的推動元素最主要便是中國人的「實用理性」。這是說中國人的理性總運用在十分實用的方面,用他自己的話說就是:「關注於現實社會生活,不作純粹抽象的思辨,也不讓非理性的情欲橫行,事事強調『實用』、『實行』和『實在』,滿足於解決問題的經驗論的思維水平,主張以理節情的行為模式,對人生世事採取一種既樂觀進取又清醒冷靜的生活態度。」李氏認為正是這種實用理性使得中國傳統在現代還有其生命力。另外,李氏基本上反對孟子以及宋明儒者的思想,認為那些都是箝制人民卻又無益於國家生產的空談,所以他反對「內聖之學」而強調所謂「外王傳統」,即現實社會的發展和政治制度的改革。 李氏所謂「西體」就是西方現代的社會生產力和生產方式,「中用」就是「實用理性」及「外王」。不過如此說「西體中用」,「外王」其實早就被「西體」消化了,所以「中用」其實也就只剩下「實用理性」。而實用理性的具體社會表現則為:「理知態度和求實精神,使道德主義仍然保持先人後己、先公後私的力量光芒。」所以一個「西體中用」的社會其實就是一個既有西方先進文化及科技,又有道德地、有人性地、有人情味地去全盤西的社會。這樣說來,中國傳統思想其實並過甚過人或必須保留之處,因為道德、人性、人情味等實非中國文化的專利品,在西方傳統中這一切都存在,根本不必甚麼「西體中用」,全盤西化也不見得便無理想社會。李氏的辨証唯物主義的思想性格使得他一方面否定了中國傳統思想中的精要,一方面又肯定了些中國文化中非本質性的元素,使得他的「西體中用」說根本未能真正肯定中國傳統思想文化的現代價值。 |
英文摘要 | Prof. Li Zhe Hou discusses his idea of “western essence, Chinese practice” in two of his major works on the history of Chinese traditional thoughts. He believes that the ideal Chinese society would be one that has at its core the “western essence” and practices in the traditional Chinese manner. As a typical dialectical materialist, what he considers valuable in the traditional Chinese culture is rather different from what the tradition itself affirms, which shows how traditional Chinese culture is incompatible with dialectical materialism. According to Li, beside social reality and individual intellectuals, “practical reasoning” is the most important element of the progression of traditional Chinese thoughts. By “practical reasoning”, Li means that the Chinese are very practical in terms of their objects of reasoning. In his own words, practical reasoning means, “...being concerned with the reality of social life; not interested in abstract thinking, not allowing any irrational upheaval of desires; putting great emphasis on practicality, implementation, and reality; satisfied with solving problem on empirical level; praising actions that are controlled by reason not emotion; seeing human encounters with a optimistic and sober attitude.” Li claims that it is “practical reasoning” that makes traditional Chinese culture still vital in the modern time. In addition, Li strongly protests against the thoughts of Mencius and the Neo-Confucians. He claims that their thoughts cause the oppression of people in ancient China and have no practical values in running a country. This is why he opposes the “learning of internal sanctification” but supports the continuation of the “external kingship tradition”, which means social development and political reform. For Li, “western essence” means the modern power and methods of production, and “Chinese practice” refers to “practical reasoning” and “external kingship”. With such an understanding of the term “western essence, Chinese practice”, the requirement of “external kingship” is already fulfilled by the “western essence”. Therefore, what is really left for “Chinese practice” is just “practical reasoning”. While the concept means exactly being humane, ethical, and sensitive to your fellow members of the community, “western essence, Chinese practice” means nothing more than fully westernizing humanely, ethically, and sensitively. If this is the case, what Li is really suggesting is total westernization, because being humane, ethical and sensitive to fellow members of one's community is not the exclusive specialty of Chinese culture. It is only natural for a dialectical materialist like Li to deny the true essence (which is more spiritual) that makes traditional Chinese culture uniquely valuable on the one hand while on the other hand affirming some trivial attributes of the culture as the essence. In this way, his idea of “western essence, Chinese practice” cannot really affirm the value of the traditional Chinese culture in the modern days. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。