頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 細論朱熹與二陸無極太極爭論=On the Debate of WujiTaiji between Zhu Xi and Lu Brothers |
---|---|
作 者 | 高在錫; | 書刊名 | 儒教文化研究 |
卷 期 | 11 2009.02[民98.02] |
頁 次 | 頁179-207 |
分類號 | 125.5 |
關鍵詞 | 無極太極; 朱陸異同; 朱熹; 陸九韶; 陸九淵; 二陸; 本體; WujiTaiji; The Difference or Sameness between Zhu and Lu; Zhu xi; Lu Jiushao; Lu Jiuyuan; Lu Brothers; Ontology; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 許多學者提到無極太極爭論時,只研究朱熹與陸九淵之間的論辯,實際上,此爭論是由陸九韶向朱熹提出問題後才開始的,討論的核心論題也在這場爭論中已大多顯現。陸九淵之所以要與朱熹重新開始論辯,是因為他完全肯定陸九韶的觀點,以之為基礎欲說服朱熹,並不是由於陸九韶的觀點不夠完整,而是為了彌補其觀點的不足。因此,對“朱陸無極太極論爭”只稱為朱熹與陸九淵之爭是不全面的,而將其稱為陸九韶、陸九淵及朱熹三者之爭更為妥當。進而對於核心論題而言,若稱為陸九韶與朱熹的論辯也不為過。 朱熹和二陸的無極太極爭論源於世界觀的差異和對本體的不同理解,根本無法得出一致的意見。其實,爭論之初,雙方都有改變對方觀點的希望,但經過面論和書信論爭後,他們意識到雙方的觀點都已根深蒂固,無法改變。太極是與氣不同層次上的形上之理,“理氣為二”的此“理”為昀高範疇即本體,是朱熹立場;太極雖是形上之理,但是不先于或獨立於器的道,道器不能為二的此“道”或“本心”為昀高範疇即本體,是二陸的立場。若謂朱熹與二陸有相同之處,正如黃宗羲所說,他們“同植綱常,同扶名教,同宗孔孟”,但雙方由於存在著世界觀的根本差異,其觀點終究不能調和,其差異在這場論辯中尤為凸顯。 |
英文摘要 | Most of the scholars just consider the “Debate of WujiTaiji” as an argument between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan when they talked about the debate. In fact, the debate started when Lu Jiushao cast some doubt on the issue and most of the main issues were mentioned in the debate between Lu Jiushao and Zhu Xi. The reason why Lu Jiuyuan restarted the debate with Zhu Xi is, not because he wanted to supplement the theory of Lu Jiushao or his theory is insufficient, but because he wanted to persuade Zhu Xi again on the basis of Lu Jiushao's viewpoints. Therefore, it is not appropriate just to consider “Debate of WujiTaiji” as the debate between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan. It will be more appropriate to consider it as the debate among the three scholars―Lu Jiusho, Lu Jiuyuan, Zhu Xi. In addition, if we think of the core of the theory itself, it is not an overestimation or an exaggeration to think it is the debate between Lu Jiushao and Zhu Xi. The “Debate of WujiTaiji” between Zhu Xi and Lu brothers started from the different viewpoints in understanding the world and the ontology itself. That's why it is no wonder that their different opinions could not reach the final conclusion in common. As for Zhu Xi, he regarded Taiji as independent because Taiji is a different concept of psychological theory from other concepts. On the other hand, Lu Jiushao regarded it as an independently non-existent concept or a concept which existed before “Qi” even though he acknowledged that Taiji is psychological. For this reason, if we try to find something in common between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan, it can be expressed as followings: “All the Conficius and Mencius will be the basis of all,” as Huang Zongxi mentioned. However, as there was a fundamental difference in their viewpoints of the ontology, they could not reach one agreeable conclusion, and so it turned out that the difference cannot be conciliated through this debate. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。