牟宗三的爲學之道－從批評維特根斯坦談起

維特根斯坦相信超越的道理不可說，邏輯經驗主義者把「不可說」解釋爲「沒有意義」，牟宗三在《名理論•譯序》中所反對的當是邏輯經驗主義者的解釋。本文首先要說明維氏沒有貶斥超越的道理，他對待命題論的態度正好說明這個情況：在他看來，因著命題論而明白了命題要怎樣才有意義，便要馬上揚棄命題論，以免執著於命題論所說的超越道理而執著於一些談不上有意義的命題，並因此而陷入思想的迷妄中。相信牟宗三不會反對維氏的用心，本文的第二個目的在於說明牟宗三以性爲無善惡的道理，這裡所說的性是好善惡惡的性，這樣的好惡有別於其它的好惡：孟子已經指出了人不好答善惡就不知道其它好善的善惡，而牟宗三更進一步指出愈多的好惡得到適當的安排，就愈是有福；讓愈多的好惡服從於無善無惡的好惡，就愈是有德：以德福相濟爲行事之本就不用追求各種好惡的善惡標準，所要用心的是盡量以各種好惡依據著好善惡惡的好惡而安頓下來，好讓我們從中領略圓善的道理（即德福並至的道理）。那麽，以無善無惡之性爲依歸，一切善惡的標凖都可以在沉默中略過。牟宗三與維氏兩人於爲學方面有相似之處。

關鍵字

牟宗三；維特根斯坦；不可說；沒有意義；爲學之道；命題論

並列摘要

Wittgenstein's belief that transcendental truth is unsayable was ill-taken by the logical empiricists who equated wrongly the word unsayable” with ”non-sensical”. What Prof. Mou retorted in the ”Preface” to his translation of Tractatus should be the misinterpretation of the logical empiricists rather than Wittgenstein's belief. He sincerely asked us to abandon his theory of propositions once we understand how propositions become meaningful, as the theory itself says something transcendental, which is in fact unsayable. For Wittgenstein, only those who drop the transcendental theory would not he trapped in the mud of philosophical confusion. But the theory itself is far from being non-sensical, though we cannot talk about it anymore. As far as Prof. Mou is concerned, he made a similar move in tackling the problem of ethical preference. Given that we may weight our preferences of different sorts in accordance with our ethical preference we may ask how to assess this particular kind of preference. According to Prof. Mou, it is fallacious to think that we can talk about our ethical preference with respect to a supreme criteria of some kind, as though such a criteria would inform us on the rightness of our ethical preference; lost as it is fallacious to think that we can talk about the theory of propositions as though is a supreme criteria, by referring to which, we can judge whether we have come to right kind of explanation on how propositio as become meaningful. Both Wittgenstein and Prof. Moo endorsed the same kind of attitude towards the transcendental theories. Therefore, the two men were closer than what Prof. Moo thought.