頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 羅欽順與貝原益軒--東亞近世儒常詮釋傳統中的氣論問題=Lo Ch'in-shun and Kaibara Ekiken: Interpretative Conflicts on the Theory of Ch'i in 17th and 18th Centruy East Asian Confucianism |
---|---|
作 者 | 楊儒賓; | 書刊名 | 漢學研究 |
卷 期 | 23:1=46 民94.06 |
頁 次 | 頁261-290 |
分類號 | 125.5 |
關鍵詞 | 羅欽順; 貝原益軒; 東亞儒學; 氣論; 朱子學; 理一分殊; Lo Ch'in-shun; Kaibara Ekiken; Confucianism in East Asia; Theory of ch'i; Chu-tzu school; Principle with many manifestations; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文是比較儒學史的著作,筆者比較了中國明 代與日本江戶早期兩位失子學修正學者的思想。明代中葉的羅欽順一直以朱子學學者自居,但他在代表作《困知記》中對程朱學派的理氣二分卻有極嚴厲的質疑。江戶早期的朱子學學者貝原益軒頗受羅欽順理論的啟發,他在晚年代表作《大疑錄》一書中,對程朱的「理氣」二分以及超越的性善論也提出強烈的批判。筆者認為貝原益軒雖然受到羅欽順的影響,兩人也同樣批判程朱「理氣」二分的觀點,但兩人的哲學立場其實大不相同。貝原益軒在《大疑錄》一書中的觀點已經放棄了超越的追求,「性即理」的模式已經不見了,「太極」、「理」、「道」這些概念完全喪失超越的向度,變成了「氣」的述詞或屬性。相反的,羅欽順在超越面上守的很緊,他雖反對程朱的「理氣」二分,而代之以「理一分殊」,或「理氣同物」,但他強調的是兩者的在本體論意有上的詭譎的同一。羅欽順基本上特的是程朱學派內的修正觀點,貝原益軒卻背叛了程朱,走向了自然主義的唯氣論之範圍。本文朱望透過中日兩位代表性儒者的論點,突顯出近世儒學傳統中「氣論」的敘述可上下其講,因而造成兩性學術性質完全不同的體系。這種現象不僅見於羅欽順及貝原益軒的思想,近世理學體系中一直存在著類似的詮釋衝突的例子,筆者認為有兩種氣論,兩種儒學。 |
英文摘要 | This article is concerned chiefly with comparative Confucianism, specifically a comparison of two revisionists of the Chu-tzu school-Lo Ch’in-shun羅欽順of the Ming dynasty and Kabara Ekiken貝原益軒of the Edo ear of Japan. Lo considered himself a scholar of the Chu-tzu school, but the serverely criticized its division of li理and ch’i氣in his representative work Kun-chih-chi困知記. Kaibra, who was inspired by Lo, criticized the theory of the transcendental goodness of human nature (性善論)and the division of li and ch’I sternly in his prominent work Taikiroku大疑錄. Although Lo influenced Kaibra, they had distinct philosophies. Kaibara gave up the search for transcendence and the mode of “nature is reason” (性即理) in Taikiroku. With his hermeneutic turn, Kaibara transformed the essence of Neo-Confuciansim: the key words of t’ai-chi大極, li, and tao道totally lost their transcendental meanings and became a prescription or attribute of ch’i. Lo Chi’in-shum, on the contrary, firmly maintained the transcendental dimension. Despite replacing the division of li and ch’i with the theory of the identity of the two or the “principle with many manifestations” (理一分殊), he emphasized the paradox ical ontological identity of li and ch’i. Lo remained revisionstic within the Ch’eng Chu school; Kaibara betrayed it and moved towards a naturalistic “Ch’iism” (唯氣論), that is, a refined materialism. Through a comparison of these two representative Confucians, I reveal that the theory of ch’i contained two aspects which resulted in two different philosophical systems in modern Confucian thought. The example of Lo Ch’in-shun and Kaibara Ekiken is not unique, but rather universal in late East Asian Confucian thought. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。