「知即德」在西洋傳統知識論的前因後果

作為哲學入門的「知識論」，在傳統哲學思的鋪陳中，其對象的「真」，乃是形上本體的「超越屬性」之一。因而，知識論的目標，一向鎖定在建立哲學的體的「形上學」。在有了形上的原理原則之後，就以之落實到哲學的用的倫理學。這條從知識論經形上學到倫理學的思想進路，萬古常新，一成不變。「知即德」的語句所展示的，卻是從知識論跳躍到倫理學的道路，其間並沒有經過形上學的銜接。可是，無論研究知識論的功用，或是探討後設倫理學，「知即德」的命題，無論贊成或反對，都是幾千年的哲學思想流變中的話題。自從蘇格拉底提出了這「知即德」的命題以來，知識和德行就結了不解之緣。「知即德」的意含，一來意謂著知識論與倫理學之間的緊密關連，二來乃指知識分子與德行的關係。「知即德」在蘇格拉底的哲學思想中，是與「知汝自己」平行與同步發展的。「才德兼備」的知識分子的訴求，以及排斥那些「有才無德」的學者，在「知即德」的命題中，表露無遺。在另一方面，在「人與物」的關係發展流變中，一是以「人定勝天」的豪氣，「宰制」物質世界，另一是以「共存共榮」的心境，「欣賞」物質世界。前者開創了自然科學，後者發展了藝術；自然科學提供給人類各種物質的需要，藝術卻提升人們精神的享受。在自然科學與藝術面前，人性忽而自覺到自身的能力：即可宰制物質世界，又能轉化自然事物。法蘭西培根的那句「知識即權力」，似乎比「知即德」更能吸引人心。但這麼一來，「才德兼備」的訴求，無形中就被削減，甚至失去制衡的功能，而「有才無德」的知性膨漲，亦將難以收拾；道德世界亦將大為失色。「知即德」的探討，因而亦就有其需要性和急迫性。

關鍵字

知識；德行；權力；蘇格拉底；法闌西培根；形上學；自然科學；藝術

並列摘要

In the development of traditional philosophical thought, the truthfulness of the object of ”epistemology” is one of the ”transcendental attributes” of metaphysical entity. Therefore, the goal of epistemology is always to build the ”metaphysics” of the entity of philosophy. Once the metaphysical principles are established, it will be thereby realized in the ethics of the usage of philosophy. The approach from epistemology to metaphysics and then to ethics is everlasting and invariable. ”Knowledge as virtue” shows an approach that jumps from epistemology to ethics, without going through metaphysics. But, no matter in the investigation of the functions of epistemology or in the exploration of meta-ethics, the proposition ”knowledge as virtue” is an issue in the evolution of philosophical thought for thousands of years. Knowledge and virtue have always been intertwined ever since Socrates brought out the proposition of knowledge as virtue.” ”Knowledge as virtue” refers first to the close connection between epistemology and ethics and second to the relation between intellectuals and virtues. In Socrates' philosophical thought, ”knowledge as virtue” developed parallel and synchronic to ”know thyself.” In the proposition of ”knowledge as virtue,” we can see clearly the claims of intellectuals who have talent and virtue while rejecting the scholars who have talent rather than virtue. On the other hand, regarding the development of the relationship between ”Man and Nature,” one is the verve of ”Man can conquer Nature as well as dominate the material world”, and the other is the state of mind of ”living together” and ”appreciating” the material world. The former develops natural science while the latter creates art; natural science satisfies man's material needs while art elevates his spiritual pleasure. Confronted with natural science and art, man suddenly becomes aware of his own ability to dominate the material world and transform the natural things. ”Knowledge is power,” as Francis Bacon once said, sounds more appealing than ”knowledge as virtue.” But in that case, the claim of ”talent with virtue” is somehow diminished or loses its function to balance, while the inflation of intelligence made by ”talent without virtue” would be hard to be dealt with, and the moral world will lose its power. Therefore we can see the necessity and urgency of the exploration of ”knowledge as virtue.”