頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 評：林安梧之「後新儒家實踐哲學的一個側面--關於『外王-內聖』問題的一些回應」=Critical Comments on An-Wu Lin's "a Side View of Post Contemporary Neo-Confucianism Practical Philosophy: Some Responses to the Issue of 'Outer Kingliness and Inner Sagehood'" |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 李瑞全; | 書刊名 | 本土諮商心理學學刊 |
| 卷 期 | 15:3 2024.09[民113.09] |
| 頁 次 | 頁52-109 |
| 專 輯 | 從新儒學到後新儒學 |
| 分類號 | 128 |
| 關鍵詞 | 當化新儒家; 牟宗三; 後新儒學; 李瑞全; 林安悟; Contemporary Neo-Confucianism; Mou Zongsan; Post contemporary Neo-Confucianism; Shui-Chuen Lee; An-Wu Lin; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese);英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 本文可說是 2022 年李瑞全在「『內聖外王』乎？『外王內聖』乎？──中國文化如何 從內聖建構民主體制兼評駁所謂『外王內聖』之謬論」（以下簡稱「批謬文」）一文對林 安梧在 2021 年發表的「從「外王」到「內聖」：新儒學之後對「內聖外王」的翻轉」（以 下簡稱「翻轉文」）一文進一步的擴充版而寫的批評。因此本文主要只就此擴充版的部份 作進一步的批判。本文首先是指出林安梧自以為超越牟宗三先生和當代新儒家而自稱為 「後新儒學」的發展實是無理和無論證的自我認定。此中包括幾個誤解和曲解。首先， 林安梧沿襲一般對儒家的批評，指「當代新儒家」為「保守主義」或「傳統主義」是為 不了解、以至曲解當代新儒學以「返本開新」之重建和開創新儒學現代化哲學發展的貢 獻和創造所在，包含牟宗三先生的「兩層存有論」、「道德的形上學」等之學術上創造所 成的龐大中國哲學體系。其次，林安梧在文中更隨意指控牟宗三與當代新儒家的「心學」 實與反儒學的「西化派」在結構上實同為波柏所批判的「方法論上的本質主義」。本文指 出這種曲解當代新儒學的義理實為無據和無理的誣衊，既不知波柏對西方傳統思辨形上 學之為獨斷之實義，亦不解當代新儒學之由道德實踐進路所成的道德形上學實為不同層 次的論述。林安梧以為把方法論本質主義的批評扣於儒學頭上，即對當代新儒學作了成 功的批判，此實為無理和不知義的說法，可謂西方現代哲學所謂錯置「範疇之謬誤」。至 於林安梧引用一般攻擊傳統儒家之禮祭和禮樂之治乃上古的巫祝咒術轉變而來，而認為 當代新儒學之「本心論」與「良知學」與此類古代巫術傳統有「密切的關連」，同是擁護 帝王專制的迷信學說，是林安梧自創的中國傳統政治和歴史中「君父聖」之「血緣縱貫 系統」表現，更是無稽之談。因為，這種說法根本上違反孔孟之由《書經》「天視自我民 視，天聽自我民聽」所具有的以民為本為主，根據人民的自主決定而擁立天子之初步的 民主觀念，以內聖開出外王的禮樂之治即仁政王道為根本的政治理想等，罔顧儒家自孔 子以來己完全擺脫古代巫術的神權式的政治安排。而且，林安梧的論斷完全漠視當代新 儒學所全力發揚的「新外王」之民主與科學的主張，所建立的重要學理發展，推進儒學 現代化的論述和努力。至於林安梧更荒誕地把當代新儒家最感慨的「中華民族花果飄零」的血淋淋事實和祈求能「靈根自植」的艱苦視為一種「形而上保存」的不知所謂的胡扯， 無足論矣。由此可見，林安梧的「由外王開內聖」的說法實不是儒家的義理，而是法家 式的現代集體主義或一黨專政的國家主義，內聖之優先性與獨立性已蕩然無存。 本文最後強力批判林安梧不知實況而妄把六十年代以來，東南亞國家的一些領袖主 張之「亞洲價值」發展，視為他所主張的「由內聖開外王」學習成果的優良表現，而不 知這種主張實是否定人民的主權，走上反民主反科學的帝王或一黨專制的舊路。這種反 民主反人權的政治價值正與現代開放社會的發展背道而馳。東南亞國家之在具體政治制 度和表現上，如排華和壓制華人在政治上的權利等，明顯表現為違反現代文明的種族和 宗教歧視的現象，足以證明林安梧之由外王改變內聖實是依政治上的權力，改造人性和 宰制人民的極權組織。這種政治發展正與當代新儒學追求民主與科學的理想背道而馳， 更不是林安梧所謂「有人倫的人權，有自覺的自由，有民主的民本」的表現。在一個意 義之下，中華民國基於傳統文化所實現的民主憲政才是儒家的「由內聖開外王」的一個 現代版本。 |
| 英文摘要 | This paper extends the criticism I made in my paper ‘From Inner Sagehood to Outer Kingliness or Vice Versa? - How to Develop a Democratic Government within Chinese Culture? With a Critique of the Fallacy of Outer Kingliness to Inner Sagehood’(hereafter referred as “critique of fallacy”, published in 2022, in response to Lin’s paper ’From＂Outer Kingliness＂ to＂Inner Sagehood＂: Post-Contemporary Neo-Confucianism Turn of the Thesis of ＂Inner Sagehood and Outer Kingliness＂, published in 2021. Hereafter referred as “overturning paper.” Hence in the following I will focus my criticism more on his newly expanded arguments. First, this paper points out that Lin's self-proclaimed "Post-Contemporary Neo-Confucianism," which he claims surpasses Mou Zongsan and Contemporary Neo-Confucianism, is an unreasonable and unsubstantiated self-designation. This includes several misunderstandings and misinterpretations. First, he follows the mistaken view that characterizing Contemporary NeoConfucianism as conservatism or traditionalism is a misunderstanding and distortion of the “returning to the root and opening new development” movement of Contemporary NeoConfucianism in their attempt to rejuvenateand development of Confucianism, which culminates in the building of an encompassing system of Confucian philosophy with new themes such as professor Mou’s twofold ontology and moral metaphysics in contrast to the West. Lin also attacks the renewed theory of the moral mind of Contemporary NeoConfucianism, claiming it in fact has the same philosophical structure as its arch enemy of total westernizationism, that fell into the same obsolete “methodological essentialism” that Karl Popper raised as a critique of a major branch of western traditional philosophies that made the west into a closed society and ended up in totalitarianism. His charge is simply without ground since he did not know the problem of metaphysical essentialism that Popper critique and the completely different practical and moral approach of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism with metaphysics embodied in a moral approach. He simply neglects the new Outer Kingliness that Contemporary Neo-Confucianism pursued in order to turn Chinese society into an open one with democracy and scientific development as part and parcel of a new Chinese culture. Lin’s charge is no less than a categorical fallacy. His further charge is that since the ritual ceremony in traditional Confucianism had a lineage with the old sorcery tradition of ancient China, the theories of moral mind and moral conscience of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism are theories that support what Lin called the “King-father-sage” blood tie system of traditional Chinese society, and thus are theories that support totalitarianism with superstitious belief. This is obviously a distorted way of viewing both traditional and contemporary Confucianism. PreChin Confucianism of Confucius and Mencius upheld the democratic saying from one of the most ancient classics, the Book of Documents: “Heaven sees through what the people see and hears what the people hear.” This proposes that the ruler should be determined by the consensus of the people, and political governance should be guided by ren (benevolence), which was a rational and moral state far beyond a superstitious magical society. Contemporary NeoConfucianism has incorporated democracy and science into their “new Outer Kingliness” program. Lin’s charges are obviously unfounded. Lin even mocks the heart-breaking expressions of one of the most prominent contemporary Neo-Confucian, Professor Tang ChunI. Tang spoke about the difficult situation where many Chinese have been forced into exile by political turmoil in recent centuries, facing cruel political persecutions. He emphasized the need to seek self-protection and survival in foreign societies through with mental strength. Lin strangely interprets this as a kind of “metaphysical preservation” to escape the turmoil of real life. This interpretation sounds ignorant and heartless, disregarding the bloody suffering and shameful way of life of our Chinese fellows in such diaspora situations. Lin’s idea of rebuilding the inner sagehood of Confucianism with “Outer Kingliness” is, in fact, not Confucianism at all. Instead, it’s a camouflage of legalism with a modern totalitarianism and collectivist face. Last but not least, this paper strongly criticizes Lin’s ignorance of the development of Asian countries as good learners of Western culture and their becoming democratic and civic countries. Lin is totally ignorant of the fact that the so-called “Asian values” upheld by some political leaders of Southeast Asia is a slogan in opposition to democracy and freedom, and in fact a reaction againt democracy and science development of modernization. Their antidemocratic governance is clearly exposed in their exclusion of the political rights of Chinese immigrants and is a kind of closed society with strong racial and religious discrimination, especially against Chinese immigrants. They are far from Lin’s ideal of a society with “human rights with ethical relationship, liberty with self-consciousness, democracy with ethical governance for people.” If there is any society close to his so-called ideal, it may be Taiwan society under the democratic constitution of the Republic of China, which is basically under the strong influence of the Confucian conception of “Inner Sagehood and Outer Kingliness” in its historical setting. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。