頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 陽明後學的「克己復禮」解及其工夫論之意涵=Late Yangming School Interpretations of "Kejifuli" and the Significance of It's Culitivation |
---|---|
作者 | 林月惠; | 書刊名 | 法鼓人文學報 |
卷期 | 2 民94.12 |
頁次 | 頁161-202 |
分類號 | 126.9 |
關鍵詞 | 陽明後學; 朱熹; 克己復禮; 顏子之學; 第一義工夫; Yangming School; Zhu Xi; Kejifuli; The learning of Yan Hui; The primary method of cultivation; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 《論語.顏淵》的「克己復禮」應如何理解與詮釋,受到古今學者熱烈的討論。值得注意的是,從明中葉的陽明弟子(如鄒東廓、王龍溪與羅近溪)至清代的思想家(如顏元、李塨、戴震),大都質疑朱熹對此章的詮釋。針對此一思想趨勢,日本著名學者溝口雄三以「人欲」的肯定來解讀。本文對此論斷提出質疑,並透過鄒東廓、王龍溪與羅近溪對「克己復禮」的解釋與論證,指出「陽明後學」的「克己復禮」解,其義理脈絡與問題意識與清代思想家不同,有其獨特的工夫論意涵。 本文詳加分析鄒東廓、王龍溪與羅近溪對「克己復禮」的詮釋,指出此三人解釋雖有不同,但他們都以王陽明的「致良知」為理據,援引《易》〈復〉卦為思想資源,反對朱熹對此章的詮釋。尤其,在他們反對朱熹「克去己私」的詮釋中,特別肯定「己」(self)作為道德實踐之行動主體的重要性與不可消解性。而且,藉由「克己復禮」的詮釋,陽明後學重新建構「顏子之學」,強調「第一義工夫」,指出「存天理」比「去人欲」在工夫的實踐上,更具優先性。 |
英文摘要 | How best to interpret the passage, “master oneself and return to propriety” (kejifuli克己復禮)(Analects), has received grat attention from scholars both past and present. In this respect, it is worth paying attention to the interpretations of three mid-Ming dynasty disciples of Wang Yuangming: zou Dongguo, Wang Longxi and Luo Jinxi; and to the interpretations of three Qing Dynasty thinkers: Yan Yuan, Li Gong, and Dai Zhen. Both of these groups doubted the validity of Zhu xi’s interpretation of the above passage. In vealuating Ming-Qing intellectual trends, the Japanese scholar Mizoguchi Yuuzou lumps all six thinkers together and interprets their positions through the lens of affirming desire. However, in this study I express doubts about Mizoguchi’s claims. It is my assertion that there is significant difference between that of late Ming Yuangming disciples and Qing thinkers with respect to philosophical trends and awareness of certain intellectual questions. This is particularly evident in analyzing the different certain intellectual questions. This is particularly evident in analyzing the different certain intellectual questions. This is particularly evident in analyzing the different explanations and proofs Zou Dongguo, Wang Longxi and Luo Jinxi give to the passage “master oneself and return to propriety,” which reflects their own unique understanding of theories on cultivation-a position quite unlike that of Yan Yuan, Li Gong, and Dai Zhen. This study presents a detailed analysis of Zou Dongguo, Wang Longxi, and Luo Jinxi’s interpretation of “master oneself and return to propriety.” Although each alters the meaning of this passage, all three thinkers take Wang Yangming’s idea of extending innate knowing as the basis, and use the “Fu” symbol from the Book of Changes (Zhouyi) as the root of this thought to oppose Zhu Xi’s interpretation of “overcoming and eliminating selfishness” (kequyisi克去己私). They especially emphasize the important and necessity of the self in the concrete expression of moral implementation. In addition, in their interpretation of “master oneself and return to propriety,” these Yuangming schoolmen revived the idea of “the learning of Yanhui” (顏子之學), strongly emphasizing its importance as the primary method of cultivation (第一義工夫) and asserted that in practice, preserving heavenly principle should take precedence over the elimination selfishness. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。