論 著 / articles |
1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 62
熊偉均
Wei-Chun Hsiung
「不形於內」的「德之行」:
郭店楚簡《五行》首章的文義商榷
The Virtuous Conduct “Not Forming Inwardly”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文之研究目標是試圖解決郭店竹簡《五行》首章之詮釋困難,並以竹簡《五行》自身的內容做為首要的證據來源。首先,筆者整理帛書派、竹簡派與調和派對首章爭議的不同見解,並點出竹簡派導致詮釋困難的思維架構;接著釐清竹簡《五行》「德之行」、「行」與「德」三者之別,以及考察竹簡《五行》「形」與「聖」之用例,發掘「聖」兼具兩種意涵之「形」,據此為竹簡《五行》首章提供更為全面且融貫之詮釋:作為最高意義的「聖」,必然在「形於內」的基礎上,兼具了內在轉化層面「形於無形」與人倫教化層面「形於眾人」此雙重意義。竹簡《五行》首章據此主張唯有「聖」無論「形於內」或「不形於內」皆可以稱為「德之行」,並確立「聖」具備超越「仁義禮智」四者的獨特地位。
This paper aims at solving the interpretive problem in the first chapter of Wu Xing of Guodian bamboo texts, majorly based on the text itself. It starts by categorizing different interpretations into three groups (the for-silk-texts, the for-bamboo-texts, and the reconciliatory), and points out the thinking patterns which have led the for-bamboo-texts to misinterpretation. It also analyzes the distinction among the virtuous conduct (dezhixing), conduct (xing), and virtue (de), and reexamines usages of the forming (xing) and sageness (sheng) of the Wu Xing to conclude that the concept of sageness includes two different meanings of forming. Therefore, the reason why the conduct of sageness should be regarded as virtuous conduct regardless of whether or not it forms “inwardly” is that the sageness, the supreme virtue, possesses both “imperceivable forming” (personal self-cultivation and transformation) and “societal forming” (interpersonal enlightenment and amelioration), which establishes the virtue of sageness in a unique position superior to the four cardinal virtues.
|
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 62
朱弘道
Hung-Tao Chu
《莊子•養生主》中「薪火之喻」的意義再探
Reexamination of the Metaphor of “Faggots” and “Fire” in Yang Sheng Zhu
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
以往研究對於《莊子•養生主》中「指窮於為薪,火傳也,不知其盡也」一句的詮釋基本上可分為兩種:其一是在標舉出形、神的對立作為詮釋工具,分別以此兩者比喻薪火,藉此提出「重神養神」的養生方針;其二則是以「事物自然地流轉變化」為分析脈絡,強調「火」的無窮無盡,並提出「勿使形體的存亡影響己心」的看法。筆者認為,以上兩詮釋各有其理據,亦有其源遠流長之歷史脈絡,因此才為學界所接受。然筆者認為,以往詮釋中,在通假字的使用、目標域與來源域的連結及字義解釋等處,尚有幾項值得討論的面向。本文將嘗試以高亨與劉武的注本作為基礎,轉換以往將「薪火之喻」作「正面」詮釋的共通點,而將其解釋為不應發生的「負面」情況。並嘗試指出,此詮釋除可在文本找到相應之說,亦能夠於以上癥結點給出回應,因此具有其獨特之價值。
This paper offers a new interpretation of the following Zhuangzi fragment: “What we can point to are the faggots that have been consumed; but the fire is transmitted (elsewhere), and we know not that it is over and ended” (Yang Sheng Zhu, chapter 3). There are two commonly accepted interpretations. One points out the opposition of form (xing 形) and spirit (shen 神) and suggests taking care of and preserving spirit as a regimen. The other interpretation focuses on the change of everything and the endlessness of fire and suggests that one’s mind should not be affected by the living or dying of things. Both interpretations have a long pedigree and enjoy their own internal support. However, in both interpretations, there are remaining issues related to the use of phonetic loan characters, the connection between source and target domains in the metaphors used, and the interpretation of some word meanings. On the basis of the commentaries of Gao Heng and Liu Wu, I attempt to develop an alternative interpretation. While both of the interpretations introduced above regard faggot and fire as positive metaphors, I instead argue that these metaphors portray negative situations that should be avoided. This novel interpretation has its own unique value because it finds support in Zhuangzi and because it meets the problems of the former two interpretations.
|
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 62
鍾振宇
Chen-Yu Chung
無用與有用的弔詭:論「莊惠之辯」的現代意義
The Paradox of Non-Usefulness and Usefulness
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
海德格在二次大戰德國戰敗之日(1945 年5 月8 日),寫了一篇對話式文章紀念此一日子,文章區分兩種用:無用與有用,最後引用了莊惠對話,提出德國要成為「無用的民族」以引領未來世界。海德格認為大戰是現代性擴張精神的結果,而其中最關鍵的就是「有用」的思考與世界觀。本文將莊惠兩種存有論的重點放在「用」的兩種差異上,視莊子為「無用的存有論」,視惠施為「有用的存有論」。這點除了文本根據外,更具有當代意義。透過海德格對於兩種用的區分,筆者試圖闡發莊惠辯論的當代意義。
At the time when Germany was defeated in the World War 2 (May 8, 1945), Heidegger wrote a dialogic essay to memorize the event. In the essay he differentiated two kinds of usefulness: non-Usefulness and usefulness. What merits our attention is that at the end of the essay he quoted the conversation between Zhuangzi and Huishi and proposed that Germany be “the nationality of non-usefulness” so as to lead the world in the future. For him the War resulted from the spirit of expansion of which ideology and worldview of “usefulness” lies at the heart. It is against such a background that this essay attempts to construct an account of Zhuangzi’s and Huishi’s ontologies by differentiating their views on “usefulness”, whereby Zhuangzi is read to represent “the ontology of non-usefulness” and Huishi to stand for “the ontology of usefulness”. Viewed in light of Heidegger’s differentiation of two kinds of “usefulness”, the essay hopes to explicate the contemporary significance of the dispute between Zhuangzi and Huishi, particularly Huishi’s emphasis on usefulness which I suggest can be related to the modern pursuit of usefulness.
|
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 62
佐藤將之
Masayuki Sato
近代日本中國哲學的誕生:
以明治一○年代在東京大學的課程為中心
The Birth of Chinese Philosophy in Meiji Japan
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文是為了闡明目前學界所稱呼「中國哲學」或「東洋哲學」的學術領域在明治時期的日本如何誕生、如何形成之一番試論。所謂「中國哲學」這樣學術領域是以「哲學」這樣的概念和學科之引進為契機而形成,並且此契機的磁石場是當時剛創立的東京大學。本文經過其創立時期教授與中國哲學相關內容的課程之費諾羅薩(Ernest F. Fenollosa)、井上哲次郎以及島田重禮三位的上課內容之分析,勾勒出江戶時代以來經學或儒學的思想內容由「哲學」的分析框架來獲得新的思想涵義之過程。如此,在德川時代原來被視為經學上的內容逐漸轉換成「人格修養」、「國民道德」等具備近代特質的倫理主張。孔孟等經學上的聖人以及戰國諸子也皆變成了「哲學家」。
This article attempts to elucidate the origin and formation of the “Chinese philosophy” or “Oriental philosophy” as an academic field which took form during the Meiji Era of Japan. The academic field called “Chinese philosophy” originated mainly from the incorporation of the discipline of philosophy into Tokyo University during the 1870s. The main scholars who contributed to the formation of this scholarly field were Ernest Fenollosa, Inoue Tetsujirō, and Shimada Chōrei. Fenollosa was the first teacher who taught the contents of Chinese thought from the viewpoint of philosophy. Inoue Tetsujirō was also the first instructor who took charge of the seminar under the title of “Oriental philosophy” in which he compared the “philosophical significance” of those early Chinese thinkers with those of their counterparts in the Western philosophical tradition. Shimada, succeeding Inoue, was another pioneer because he first taught the whole history of Chinese thought from the ancient to the Manchurian period, though Shimada himself had not received philosophy education in his youth. Their seminars have strengthened the philosophical image of traditional Chinese thinkers, and as a result, those thinkers have been all considered to be “philosophers” by the time of the early twentieth century. It was by this re-interpretation of the significance of traditional thought, especially from the perspective of ethics, that the contents of Confucian canonical studies of the Tokugawa period have been transformed into a new ideological ground for advocating the necessity of self-cultivation and so-called “national morality” in the following Taishō and Shōwa periods.
|
|
|