頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 荀子「性惡」說芻議=Some Observations on the Hsun Tzu's Theory of the "Xing E" |
---|---|
作 者 | 劉振維; | 書刊名 | 東華人文學報 |
卷 期 | 6 2004.07[民93.07] |
頁 次 | 頁57-92 |
分類號 | 121.27 |
關鍵詞 | 荀子; 性惡; 人性本惡; 化性起偽; Hsun Tzu; Xing E; Human nature is evil; Human nature is originally evil; Xing ban E; Transformation of human nature by self-cultivation; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 荀子因「性惡」之乙說,歷代中不斷遭到疵議,聲授緩和者甚弱;時人視之為「人性本惡」,復因理學餘波影響猶存,甚而言其糊塗者有之。然而,考《荀子》乙書蘊義,對「性惡」乙說理解的歧出,便無法理解「化性起偽」的意義,也就無法清楚理解荀子為何強調隆禮與尊君了。本文與其說是為荀子「性惡」說翻案,毋寧說是為清楚理解荀子「性惡」說的意義而為之。本文首先討論荀子論「性」的意義,確定其為人存活時必然具有的事實,且是以「欲」的形式展現,所以人之「性」是先天的。次論「性惡」意旨,明荀子人之「性」苦任其發展,結果自然為「惡」,故「性惡」可稱為「人性是惡」,而非時人所稱之「人性本惡」。三論「性」何以可「化」?得出不是改變既有的人之性,而是不使人之性表現之欲求過度,故而荀子強調「起偽」。最後討論人何以有「化性起偽」的可能,關鍵在於荀子認定人心皆能透過「虛壹而靜」的工夫達到大清明的境界。如是理析,即能看出陷於孟子「性善」與荀子「性惡」之爭,在嚴格學術意義上並不具有輕重的地位。就理論上看,荀子學說並無矛盾或令人無法想像之處。至於荀子理論本身是否妥切,其對人之見解是否符應事實,乃為另一層面的議題,不應將之混為一談。 |
英文摘要 | Hsun Tzu's theory of “Xing E” has been interpreted as “human nature is originally evil”, therefore received many criticisms since been asserted. However, this is indeed a misunderstanding of relevant terms in the text, and this misunderstanding made Hsun Tzu's teaching of “transformation of human nature by self-cultivation” absurd. This article purposes to clarify these terms. First, according to the book of Hsun Tzu, human nature signifies necessary (hence a priori) desires of a human as a living being. It is a neutral term.Second, if we let these desires unchecked, they are apt to result evil. So not “human nature is originally evil”, but only “human nature is (apt to) evil”. The goal of cultivation is not to eliminate human desires all together, but to limit them appropriately. The possibility of cultivating lies in mind’s capacities to be open and peaceful, through which to become clear-minded. To sum up, the alleged contradiction between Mencius’ and Hsun Tzu's doctrine of human nature don’t exist. The genuine problem of Hsun Tzu's theory is whether his descriptions revealed the facts about human beings. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。