朱子「本性論」探析

中國傳統哲人類皆主：吾人「生具」、「永具」、「皆具」、「圓具」成聖質素。那朱子對此一問題到底如何主張？當此等問題釐清後，便可明瞭朱子本性論與傳統哲人本性論之同異；亦可在本性論上，確定朱子於中國哲學史中之地位。經本文探析，發現朱子之「性理」當指「仁義禮智」之粗略概念，而非真正成聖本質。故即使朱子主吾人「內具」「永具」仁義禮智概念，亦不同於傳統哲人之說。「皆具」部分，朱子疑因概念錯置，誤將存在物所以然之「理」，錯轉為仁義禮智之「理」，致謂枯槁之物亦有仁義禮智之「理」，進而造成謬謂「人物同具」成聖之理，此說已悖離傳統哲人之說。最後，因朱子晚年主「氣異理異說」，故朱子並不主張所有人皆「圓具」成聖質素。總括言之，朱子的本性論與傳統哲人之本性論，似有相當程度差距；故就本性論觀點言，朱子或不當在正統儒者之列。

關鍵字

朱子；本性論；未發；氣質之性；枯槁有性

並列摘要

Traditional philosophers of China all argued that we ＂inherently＂, ＂permanently＂, ＂collectively＂ and ＂thoroughly＂ have the quality to be sages. What is the view of Chu Hsi on this issue? After clarifying the issue, the difference and similarity between theory of human nature of Chu Hsi and traditional philosophers' theory of human nature can be recognized. Upon theory of human nature, the position of Chu Hsi in Chinese philosophy history is established. This paper finds that the ＂nature of reason＂ of Chu Hsi means ＂benevolence, justice, courtesy and wisdom＂ instead of the quality to be sages. Thus, although Chu Hsi suggested that we ＂inherently＂ and ＂permanently＂ have benevolence, justice, courtesy and wisdom, it is different from traditional philosophers' statements. As to ＂permanent quality＂, it seems that Chu Hsi mistakenly referred ＂reason＂ of existence to ＂reason＂ of benevolence, justice, courtesy and wisdom. Thus, withered objects also have ＂reason＂ of benevolence, justice, courtesy and wisdom and human beings and objects both have the nature to be sages. The statement is different from traditional philosophers'. Finally, in old ages, Chu Hsi proposed ＂Chi Yi Li Yi Shuo＂ and he did not suggest that all human beings ＂thoroughly＂ have quality to be sages. In conclusion, the theory of human nature of Chu Hsi is different from traditional philosophers'. Thus, from perspective of theory of human nature, Chu Hsi might not be considered as one of the classical Confucians.