戴震的氣化人性論(III-II)
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2010/08-2011/07
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本計畫將探討戴震氣化人性論據以展開的方法論基礎，《孟子字義疏證》所包含的 儒家經典詮釋原則將是主要的討論課題。戴震在他的代表作《孟子字義疏證》一書，分 別對於「理」、「天道」、「性」、「才」等字詞採取了語文學與哲學的同步進路替《孟子》 進行考証與詮釋工作。此書可看做是戴震建立了自己的哲學體系後，對於程朱理學的回 應與批評，而回應的方式在體例上仿擬了朱熹的學生陳淳所作的《北溪字義》。戴震不 能滿意陳淳的字義論述在方法上的缺憾，而這也是朱熹等宋儒的共同缺失(「鑿空」)， 所以他的書名除了「字義」的論述之外，還要對於自己所申述的字詞意涵，輔以考証的 方法來會通古書的義理，於是而有「疏證」以加強字義論述的古典文獻根據。「字義疏 證」意圖先奠定語文學的基礎才發展哲學論述，所以他主張回到經典自身的語文脈絡來 詮釋經典(「以經解經」)。然而，從詮釋學循環的角度來看，戴震似乎只片面地強調了 從字義到文意到義理的階序，而忽略了在字義理解的階段很可能早已滲透了從義理層次 而來的先行領會。以當代西方詮釋學的眼光來看，「字義疏證」作為一種經典詮釋方法 固然有相當程度的侷限性，然而由此樸質的方法所展開的思想卻包覆著「哲學∕歷史」、 「差異∕同一」、「文本∕生命」等重重複雜的辯證關係。戴震的經典詮釋方法標誌著典 範的轉移，其意義或許並非單純地「從宋儒的哲學過渡向清儒的語文學」(from philosophy to philology)，有可能更是種具有理論潛力的「寓哲學論述於語文學方法」(philosophy in philology)。
This project intends to explore the methodological foundation of Dai Zheng’s(戴震) theory of Qi(氣)-based human nature and its focus is put upon the interpretative principles of Confucian classics employed in Meng Zi Zi-Yi Shu-Zheng(《孟子字義疏證》). Dai Zheng takes both philological approach to explore the roots of words (such as Principle, Heaven Principle, Nature, Character, etc.) and philosophical approach to interpret them. This book is Dai Zheng’s response to Cheng-Zhu Li School(程朱理學) after his own philosophy is well established. The style of Meng Zi Zi-Yi Shu-Zheng follows that of Chen Chuen’s(陳淳) Bei Xi Zi-Yi(《北溪字義》), who is a pupil of Zhu Zi. Dai Zheng, however, does not agree with Chen’s methodological defects, which are in fact common in Confucian scholars in Song dynasty, including Zhu Xi(朱熹). Dai Zheng claims that philological examinations of the classics in ancient times are indispensible. Philosophical interpretations of words (and concepts) cannot be legitimate without philological explorations. That is to say, one must return to the original context from which the words (concepts) are brought up in order to fully understand them. Nevertheless, in terms of hermeneutic circle, it seems that Dai Zheng partially emphasizes an one-way order, that is, from philology to philosophy; thus he neglects the possibility in which philosophical pre-understanding is intrinsic to understanding of words. Even though Dai Zheng’s philological methods appear limited and somehow naïve from the perspective of contemporary hermeneutics, this method might envelop complex dialects between philosophy and history, text and life, difference and identity. Dai Zheng’s interpretative method marks a paradigmatic shift. It is perhaps not simply a passage from philosophy oriented Song Confucianism to philology oriented Qing Confucianism; rather, it could present a philosophy in philology.
This project intends to explore the methodological foundation of Dai Zheng’s(戴震) theory of Qi(氣)-based human nature and its focus is put upon the interpretative principles of Confucian classics employed in Meng Zi Zi-Yi Shu-Zheng(《孟子字義疏證》). Dai Zheng takes both philological approach to explore the roots of words (such as Principle, Heaven Principle, Nature, Character, etc.) and philosophical approach to interpret them. This book is Dai Zheng’s response to Cheng-Zhu Li School(程朱理學) after his own philosophy is well established. The style of Meng Zi Zi-Yi Shu-Zheng follows that of Chen Chuen’s(陳淳) Bei Xi Zi-Yi(《北溪字義》), who is a pupil of Zhu Zi. Dai Zheng, however, does not agree with Chen’s methodological defects, which are in fact common in Confucian scholars in Song dynasty, including Zhu Xi(朱熹). Dai Zheng claims that philological examinations of the classics in ancient times are indispensible. Philosophical interpretations of words (and concepts) cannot be legitimate without philological explorations. That is to say, one must return to the original context from which the words (concepts) are brought up in order to fully understand them. Nevertheless, in terms of hermeneutic circle, it seems that Dai Zheng partially emphasizes an one-way order, that is, from philology to philosophy; thus he neglects the possibility in which philosophical pre-understanding is intrinsic to understanding of words. Even though Dai Zheng’s philological methods appear limited and somehow naïve from the perspective of contemporary hermeneutics, this method might envelop complex dialects between philosophy and history, text and life, difference and identity. Dai Zheng’s interpretative method marks a paradigmatic shift. It is perhaps not simply a passage from philosophy oriented Song Confucianism to philology oriented Qing Confucianism; rather, it could present a philosophy in philology.