「格物致知」之始原意義與其內涵

自宋代以來，「格物致知」成為眾多學者討論的對象。從宋代末已經出現了解「格物致知」為「知本末先後」的傾向。進入明末清初，考證學傾向的學者再次回到鄭玄、孔穎達的注疏，力圖尋找朱熹以前的原意。這種企圖一直延續到近代。例如馮友蘭指出了「格物致知」和荀子學的相關性。以後，許多學者接受馮友蘭的想法，做出了脫離理學傳統的新解釋。另外，雖然其論證過程與馮友蘭不同，日本的板野長八也得出了類似的結論。從他們的研究成果，我們可以發現對「知」有兩種解釋。一種是，以馮友蘭為首，把它解釋為經驗知識；另一種是像板野長八那樣，用神性知識解釋它。本文要通過《禮記正義》相關註釋的再檢討，顯示「知」是一種身體、技術性知識。

關鍵字

格物致知；鄭玄；孔穎達；朱熹；荀子；馮友蘭

並列摘要

Since the Song Dynasty, ＂Gewuzhizhi＂ has been the subject of much discussion among scholars. From the end of the Song Dynasty, there has been a tendency to understand ＂Gewuzhizhi＂ as ＂knowledge of the beginning and the end, the essence and the tributary.＂ Entering the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, scholars with a tendency to study historical evidences returned to Zheng Xuan (鄭玄) and Kong Yingda (孔穎達)'s commentary again, trying to find its original meaning. These attempts continued into modern times. For example, Feng Youlan (馮友蘭) pointed out the correlation between ＂Gewuzhizhi＂ and the learnings of Xunzi (荀子). Later, many scholars accepted Feng Youlan's ideas and made new explanations that departed from the tradition of the learning of Zhu Xi (朱熹). In addition, although his argumentation process is different from that of Feng Youlan, Japan's Itano Chohachi (板野長八) also reached similar conclusions. From their research results, we can find that there are two interpretations of ＂knowledge＂ of ＂Gewuzhizhi＂. One is to explain it as empirical knowledge, headed by Feng Youlan. The other is to explain it with divine knowledge, like Itano Chohachi. We hope to re-examine the relevant annotations of The Book of Rites (《禮記》), showing that ＂knowledge＂ of ＂Gewuzhizhi＂ is a kind of physical and technical knowledge.