頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 對林安梧教授〈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〉之省察=A Reflection on Professor 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 | 黃漢忠; | 書刊名 | 本土諮商心理學學刊 |
| 卷 期 | 15:3 2024.09[民113.09] |
| 頁 次 | 頁172-203 |
| 專 輯 | 從新儒學到後新儒學 |
| 分類號 | 128 |
| 關鍵詞 | 當代新儒家; 後新儒家; 牟宗三; 林安梧; 方法論上的本質主義; Contemporary Neo-Confucianism; Post contemporary Neo-Confucianism; Mou Zongsan; An-Wu Lin; Methodological essentialism; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese);英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 在〈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〉一文 中,林安梧教授說明了他的學思歷程中對「徹底的反傳統主義」和當代新儒家的批評, 以展現他所主張的「後新儒家實踐哲學」。其中,林教授批評當代新儒家的其中一為代表 人物牟宗三先生的「良知之自我坎陷」說,只是某種詮釋下的哲學構造,不是真正的歷 史事實。另一方面,林教授認為當代新儒家表面上雖然與徹底的反傳統主義對立,但事 實上兩者皆全盤接受西方的民主與科學,而且也同樣有「方法論上的本質主義」的問題。 本文的目的,即在於進一步省察林教授對當代新儒家特別是牟宗三先生思想的批評。筆 者認為,林教授沒有清楚認識牟先生提出的「本質的機緣」和「現實的機緣」之間的區 別,以及只著眼於「現實的機緣」,未能注意到西方文化可開出民主與科學,而傳統中國 文化則未能有這樣的開展,有其「本質的機緣」。其次,林教授忽略了牟先生曾對西方民 主與科學背後所依據的「理性之架構表現」,其中的限制提出深刻的反省。此外,本文也 藉由牟先生的觀點,回應林教授對「方法論上的本質主義」之批評。 |
| 英文摘要 | In “A Side View of Post Contemporary Neo-Confucianism Practical Philosophy: Some Responses to the Issue of ‘Outer Kingliness and Inner Sagehood’” An-Wu Lin elaborates his critique on radical anti-traditionalism and Contemporary Neo-Confucianism to demonstrate his practical philosophy of post-Contemporary Neo-Confucianism. He criticizes “the doctrine of self-negation of Liang-zhi” developed by Mou Zongsan, one of the main figures of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism, arguing that it does not align with the historical development of democracy and science and regards it as a philosophical construction under Mou’s interpretation. Moreover, Lin also thinks that both radical anti-traditionalism and Contemporary Neo-Confucianism uncritically endorse democracy and science developed from Western civilization, and both involve the fault of methodological essentialism, although they usually oppose each other. This paper examines Lin’s critique of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism, especially the thought of Mou Zongsan. It argues that Lin’s critique of Mou’s thought is based on his misunderstanding of the difference between the “essential cause” and the “factual cause” suggested by Mou and his failure to recognize that the essential cause of Western democratic and scientific development is derived from a civilization of its own, which is lacking in traditional Chinese civilization. Moreover, Lin neglects Mou’s critique on the limitation of “the constitutive performance of reason,” which is the foundation of democracy and science. Lastly, this paper also responds to Lin’s critique of methodological essentialism from Mou’s point of view. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。