頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 對唐君毅平議朱熹與王陽明的反思=On Tang Jun-Yi's Review about Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming |
---|---|
作 者 | 杜保瑞; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
卷 期 | 43:8=507 2016.08[民105.08] |
頁 次 | 頁21-44 |
專 輯 | 現代新儒學專題 |
分類號 | 120 |
關鍵詞 | 王陽明; 朱熹; 陸象山; 知行合一; 大學; 心即理; 格物致知; Wang Yang-ming; Lu Xiang-shan; Knowledge is action; The great learning; Mind is principle; Extending knowledge by the investigation of things; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文討論唐君毅先生對朱熹與王陽明理論的比較觀點,唐先生盡一切努力要改變程朱陸王分為兩系的傳統觀點,指出有些意見朱陸一致而不同於朱熹,如先知後行說,以及批判道佛還是三教同旨。有些意見朱王相同而異於象山,如象山立志工夫是第一義,而朱王去人欲存天理,皆是第二義以下的細密工夫。此外,朱王之間,有些陽明對朱熹的批評,唐先生不贊成,而幫朱熹反駁,如心理為二之說,如理在心外之說。也有些陽明與朱熹不同的意見,唐先生肯定陽明之說有高於朱熹之處,如朱熹分先知後行,而陽明以為知行合一;朱熹工夫八目,而陽明即致良知一義即得要旨;朱熹體用二分,而陽明體用合一。這些觀點,筆者即有不同的意見。但也有一些朱王不同的意見,唐先生以為朱說更有價值,如對治氣稟私惡的細密工夫。以上種種議論,有些筆者贊同,有些筆者反對,關鍵在於唐先生仍然是忽略了朱熹很多理論是在做文本詮釋,則不能溢出原點文本的意旨,而陽明是在做哲學創作,故而可以自由發揮,其結果,朱王針對的哲學基本問題並不相同,有些是工夫論的應主合一,有些是形上學的應予析分。平議朱陸王之間的異同優劣,應重視詮釋與創作的差異,更應重視哲學基本問題的異同。總結唐先生的討論,筆者仍認為,這是當代無出其右的朱王平議系統,應予介紹並推廣,尤其是,論旨多與牟宗三先生不同,如朱陸皆是自律工夫一義,以及陽明更近於朱熹而非象山問題等說法。 |
英文摘要 | This article is about how Tang Jun-yi compared Zhu Xi's and Wang Yang-ming's theories, making his best efforts to subvert the traditional view that Cheng and Zhu belonged to one school of Neo-Confucianism while Lu and Wang belonged to another. Tang pointed out that sometimes Zhu was similar to Wang and different from Lu, as Lu's idea of will determination was distinct from Zhu and Wang's theory about "reducing human desires to preserve heavenly principles." Furthermore, Tang disapproved some of Wang's criticisms about Zhu and defended his idea about the distinction between mind and principle, while celebrating Wang's ideas of "knowledge as action" and "fulfilling the innate knowledge" were superior to Zhu's ideas of "knowledge before action," "the eight steps of cultivation" and the "division between essence and practice." However, the writer believes that Tang neglected that fact that a great part of Zhu's theories was commentaries and not supposed to surpass the original meanings of the texts. On the other hand, Wang was making philosophical creation and therefore enjoyed much more freedom. It is not right to comment on the merits and weaknesses between Zhu, Lu and Wang without paying attention to the differences between commentary and creation or the fundamental differences and similarities in their philosophy. Even so, concluding Tang's discussion, the writer still believes that Mr. Tang was the best reviewer of Zhu's and Wang's theories and should be advocated. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。