查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 從「性善」到「道德心」--論當代儒學對人性概念的探討
- 「孟子性善論」解析
- 康德的「根本惡」說--兼與孟子的性善說相比較
- 從「性善」到「性本善」--一個儒學核心概念轉化之探討
- 孟子人性善說的述評
- 四書講義(76)--《孟子》論人性
- Evaluating James Legge's (1812~1897) Assessment of Master Mèng's Theory of the Goodness of Human Nature: Comparative Philosophical and Cultural Explorations
- 性善論的成立--《孟子.告子上》前六章人性論問題分析
- 戴震的「一本論」--戴震關於性情問題的思考
- 對話交流,提升孟學,性善發揚,真善美聖
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 從「性善」到「道德心」--論當代儒學對人性概念的探討=Human Nature in the Discussion of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism |
---|---|
作 者 | 劉振維; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
卷期 | 36:8=423 2009.08[民98.08] |
頁次 | 頁101-118 |
專輯 | 當代中國哲學專題 |
分類號 | 128 |
關鍵詞 | 孟子; 性善; 當代新儒家; 道德心; 人性; Mencius; Human nature is good; Contemporary Neo Confucianism; Moral heart; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 「性善」,是孟子(372-289 B. C.)人性論的主張;「道德心」,是當代新儒家對人性論道德形上學的詮釋。當代大儒徐復觀(1903-1982)、唐君毅(1909-1978)、牟宗三(1909-1995)等,皆理解孟子「性善」為「道德心」。以牟氏之說,「心體」即「性體」。然而,孟子所言之心,乃一「出入無時,莫知其嚮」(《孟子•告子上》)之活潑無方向的心,並不是一個道德本體的「本心」或「道德心」。考當代新儒家諸賢,大體認定孟子「四端之心」乃一「善」的根源,並視此為道德本體,名之曰「道德心」。對比《孟子》文本,恐非孟子本意,詮解發揮處較多;對之,清儒焦循(1765-1814)即有所反思。事實上,從「性善」到「道德心」其間有一思維上轉折的歷程,陸王心學的開展則是最大的影響。本文論述焦距,置於儒學人性論此一核心議題之上,著重於對比《孟子》文本與當代新儒家對之的見解與詮釋,以作一探討。全文區分三部分,一論孟子「性善」的蘊義,二論當代新儒家以「道德心」詮釋「性善」的意義,三研析「道德心」的理論溯源及其問題。最後作一結論。 |
英文摘要 | Mencius (372-289 B.C.) claimed that ”human nature is good”, the notion of a ”moral heart” is the metaphysical explanation of this claim by contemporary Neo-Confucianism. Contemporary Neo-Confucianists like Xu Fuguang (1903-1982), Tang Junyi (1909-1978) and Mou Zongsan (1909-1995) all interpret the ”good human nature” of Mencius as a ”moral heart”. But the heart that Mencius talks about has no definite direction as we would expect from a heart that has a clear moral orientation. This discrepancy of meaning shows that the contemporary Neo-Confucianist interpretation cannot be reconciled with the original text. This has already been pointed out by the Qing times scholar Jiao Xun (1765-1814) and it is possible to trace the gradual change of meaning throughout history. This paper will directly confront the Book of Mencius with its contemporary Neo-Confucian interpreters to point out the philosophical differences between the two. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。