頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 儒家倫理與華人教育觀：含攝易經智慧的自性修養之現代化開展=Confucian Ethics and Chinese Views on Education: The Modern Development of Self-Cultivation Incorporating the Wisdom of the I-Ching |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 夏允中; 王智弘; 嚴嘉琪; | 書刊名 | 本土諮商心理學學刊 |
| 卷 期 | 16:2 2025.06[民114.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁vi-xxxii |
| 分類號 | 121.2 |
| 關鍵詞 | 儒家倫理; 華人教育; 含攝文化理論; 易經; 自性; 修養心理學; Confucian ethics; Chinese views on education; I-Ching; Culture inclusive theory; Self nature; Psychology of self-cultivation; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese);英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 本期的專刊共有五篇文章，主要是針對符碧真（2025a）儒家倫理與華人教育觀：哲 學反思、理論建構與實徵研究所提出的論文，進行三篇打靶論文，最後符碧真（2025b） 進行回應，整個主軸圍繞在如何用西方的「形構之理」，說清楚儒家智慧的「存在之理」。 符教授長期從事「華人教育觀」研究，多年學習黃光國教授所提出的多重哲學典範的知 識論策略來進行研究工作，深刻了解泛文化研究與文化系統研究的差別，從泛文化研究 「知其然，但不知其所以然」，走向含攝文化系統研究「知其然，且知其所以然」。從 儒家倫理建構「修養的角色義務理論」，指出個人應不斷自我修養，善盡五倫對偶關係 中的角色義務，以滿足重要他人的期待。社會大眾以個人努力盡其角色義務的程度，做 為評斷其道德修養的標準。角色義務蘊含道德修養境界的提升，又與社會期許的縱向成 就目標相連，故努力追求與達成成就目標即是「倫理」與「道德」的顯現。第二篇提出 符教授為採用反思性主位取向研究法，有存在「文化膠囊」的偏見，這指謂的是它僅持 單一文化觀點而對其他社會文化現象及知識的忽視所建構的理念，容易導致習慣以刻版 化的印象來取代真實世界。文中建議反身性客位取向研究法來構建本土理論，較可能幫 助研究者達到同時兼顧文化和社會內個體間差異以及跨文化間差異現象的雙重目標。第 三篇相當認同符教授闡述的研究取向和基本觀點。但接著文中提出重要的提問，不同文 明的文化系統與價值觀常彼此交流衝擊，未來不同的文化系統是否可能逐漸融合？或繼 續維持差異？未來是否可能朝向某種特定價值觀發展？或是融合成為整合式文化系 統？第四篇更提出「含攝文化理論」之文化如何決定？近似真理的有效性及理論解釋力 如何判定？最後一篇由符教授來回覆上述三篇的提問，也提出如若能採取「文化異質化」 與「文化雜揉化」，建構出同時適用於全人類文化社會共用的理論，也能說明文化間差 異的現象。本文接著建議還要釐清「文化形態學」與「文化衍生學」的研究，「文化形 態」是「由曾經存在之知識菁英等的全集所構成的」，它可以讓我們看到「社會－文化 的交互作用」也就是「文化衍生」，所以，「文化型態學」的研究應當先於「文化衍生 學」。這道理其實也十分簡單：例如易經是儒與道的道德形上學基礎，因此如果我們對 易經的「文化型態」沒有全盤的理解，我們如何可能知道「它」在某一特定時空中的「演變歷程」？因此接續介紹易經及其衍生的儒家與老子智慧的的「文化型態」內容。最後 期待本期「儒」文與三位評論者之間的對話，能創造良性的學術對話，激盪出新的迴響， 進一步開展含攝易經智慧的自性修養之社會科學研究。 |
| 英文摘要 | This special issue comprises five articles, primarily centered around Professor Bih-Jen Fwu’s work (Fwu, 2025a), Confucian Ethics and Chinese Views on Education: Philosophical Reflection, Theoretical Construction, and Empirical Research. Three of the articles serve as critical commentaries on Fwu’s work, followed by a response from Fwu (2025b). The central theme revolves around how to articulate the Confucian wisdom of “the logic of being” using the Western framework of “the logic of construction.” Professor Fwu has long engaged in research on the “Chinese conception of education,” building on Professor Kwang-Kuo Hwang’s epistemological strategy of multiple philosophical paradigms. She has deeply understood the distinction between pancultural and cultural system approaches in cross-cultural research— moving from pancultural studies that “know what is,” but not “why it is so,” to cultural system studies that both “know what is” and “understand why it is so.” By constructing a “theory of role obligations in self-cultivation” based on Confucian ethics, Fu posits that individuals should constantly engage in self-cultivation and fulfill their role obligations in the five cardinal relationships to meet the expectations of significant others. The public evaluates one’s moral cultivation based on the degree to which one fulfills these obligations. Role obligations are closely tied to moral development and are aligned with society’s expectations for vertical achievement goals. Thus, the pursuit and realization of such goals becomes an embodiment of both “ethics” and “morality.” The second article critiques Fu’s use of a reflective emic approach, arguing that it may fall into the trap of “cultural encapsulation”—a bias that arises when a theory is constructed solely from a single cultural perspective, overlooking other sociocultural phenomena and forms of knowledge, which can lead to stereotyped interpretations of the real world. The author proposes a reflexive etic approach as more suitable for constructing indigenous theories, as it can better address both intra-cultural individual differences and crosscultural variations. The third article strongly agrees with Fwu’s research approach and fundamental perspectives but raises critical questions: as different cultural systems and values from various civilizations continuously interact and clash, is it possible that these systems may eventually merge? Will cultural differences persist, or could they evolve toward a dominant set of values or an integrated cultural system? The fourth article raises further questions about the “Culture-Inclusive Theory,” such as: How is a culture determined? How is the validity of neartruth and the explanatory power of a theory assessed? The final article presents Professor Fu’s response to the previous three critiques. In addition, Fu suggests that adopting the notions of “cultural heterogenization” and “cultural hybridization” may help construct theories that are simultaneously applicable to shared human cultural and social experiences, while also explaining inter-cultural differences. She further recommends clarifying the research distinctions between “cultural morphostasis” and “cultural morphogenesis.” Cultural morphostasis refers to “the complete body of knowledge once held by intellectual elites,” which allows us to perceive the “interaction between society and culture,” i.e., cultural derivation. Therefore, research in “cultural morphostasis” should precede that in “cultural morphogenesis.” This principle is straightforward: for example, the I-Ching (Book of Changes) serves as a metaphysical moral foundation for both Confucianism and Daoism. If we do not fully understand the cultural morphology of the I-Ching, how can we comprehend its “evolutionary process” within specific historical and social contexts? Hence, the article proceeds to introduce the cultural morphostasis of the I-Ching and the derived wisdom traditions of Confucius and Lao Tzu. Ultimately, this issue aspires to foster a fruitful academic dialogue between Confucian thought and the three reviewers, sparking new intellectual resonance and paving the way for further development in social science research on self-cultivation that integrates the wisdom of the I-Ching. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。