對朱熹在《知言疑義》中批評胡宏的方法論反省

The Methodological Reflection about the Criticism to Hu Hong in the Doubt of Zhi Yan by Zhu Hsi

杜保瑞(Bau-Ruei Duh)

《國立臺灣大學哲學論評》 37期 (2009/03) Pp. 121-161

https://doi.org/10.6276/NTUPR.2009.03.(37).03

摘要

本文討論《知言疑義》中朱熹對胡宏的批評意見，企圖澄清兩造思路的差異，從而各自呈現兩家思維的特色與要點。《知言疑義》中胡宏的文句多半是本體工夫論合構的發言，因此語多跳躍，致引朱熹之批評。朱熹即由性善論的本體論立場批評胡宏有「性無善惡」之說，及由存有論思路的「心統性情說」批評胡宏的心性相關語句之不佳，以及由「未發涵養已發察識」的工夫次第思路批評胡宏並未重視平日涵養一節。本文將藉由作者所提之「實踐哲學的解釋架構」，以及「存有論哲學」的問題意識分析，以澄清兩造哲學問題意識的不同，因而並未形成真正的衝突，從而亦藉此說明朱熹與胡宏各自論學之重點意旨。

關鍵字

胡宏 ； 朱熹 ； 存有論 ； 性善論 ； 工夫次第論

並列摘要

The discussion in this article is about the criticism to Hu Hong in The doubt of Zhi yan Proposed by Zhu Hsi. The author is aiming to clear the dissimilar way of thinking between the two philosophers to the effect that both their significant theory could be appeared. Hu Hong's philosophical announcement always integrates the ontological and practical theory, which results to the ambiguity and give rise to the criticism from Zhu Hsi. Zhu Hsi possessed the position of the goodness of nature to query Hu Hong about his no good and no evil opinion toward the theory of the human nature. In the definition of the mind and nature, master Zhu Hsi proposed the mind comprise the nature and the felling and argued with Hu Hong's different opining. Concerning about the practical procedure theory, Zhu Hsi insist the cultivation should be built on daily life, and critic Hu Hong's philosophy being short of this understanding. In this article the author will use the interpretational structure of the practical theory and the theory of being to analyze the different consciousness in these two systems and suggest that there exist no real conflict between them so as to explain both their philosophical thinking.

並列關鍵字

Hu Hong ； Zhu Hsi ； the theory of being ； the goodness of nature ； the practical procedure theory

參考文獻

胡宏、吳仁華點校(1983)。胡宏集。中華書局。

黃宗羲、全祖望補修、陳金生、梁運華。宋元學案。中華書局。

牟宗三(1983)。心體與性體。臺北:正中書局。

金春峰(1998)。朱熹哲學思想。臺北:東大書局。

王立新(1996)。胡宏。臺北:東大圖書公司。