從「心具理」觀念看朱子道德哲學的特性

程朱學與陸王學爲代表宋明理學之兩大系派。其中，程朱學只肯定性即理而否定心即理，它代表理學一派。而陸王學非但肯定性即理，同時肯定心即理，但對心的強調遠超於性，故稱爲心學。就字意上而言，它們的差別只在於性即理與心即理，但能夠把握此義的學者，並不多。陸王的「心即理」哲學是自律道德的典範，陸王肯定意志的自律立法性，程朱雖肯定理先天地具於心，而卻否定心即理，此即表示程朱否定意志的自律立法性。兩學派道德哲學理論之特殊性，雖可以從多方面來探討，但筆者要把其線索定於心具理。就陸王學而言，心是道德意志，它必向於善，故它所定的方向就是理，理由心來決定，心順自己所定的理以活動，主宰人以成就道德價值，故心即理，理即心。在陸王學，心具理之具，只是說明心即理的一種方便。但在朱子哲學，心具理可從三方面來講；一、就「心」的存在方面。二、就知覺義之「能知」與「所知」。三、就道德實踐行爲方面，筆者認爲心具理是朱子哲學之核心，故可從心具理來把握朱子道德哲學之特性。

關鍵字

心學；理學；心即理；性即理；性具理

並列摘要

Ch'eng-Chu and Lu-Wang are two main schools in Sung-Ming-Li-Hsüeh. Ch'eng-Chu's main thought in Hsing-Chi-Li, so this school is representative of Li-Hsüeh. Lu-Wang'n main thought in Hsin-Chi-Li, so this school is representative of Hsin-Hsüeh. But I believe most scholars missed the point of difference between these two schools. Hsing-Chi-Li and Hsin-Chi-Li are not only different thoughts, but also have very different moral import. Because Ch'eng-Chu insists Hsing-Chi-Li and denies Hsin-Chi-Li, it denies our will's self-legislation through law. In contrast with Ch'eng-Chu, Lu-Wang affirms two kinds of thought, i.e. Hsing-Chi-Li and Hsin-Chi-Li, no it asserts the will's legislative power through moral law. We can discriminate the two an different point of view about the relation between Hsin and Li. In the system of Lu-Wang, Hsin and Li is the same, but just different names. Hsin in moral will, so moral law is just what the will prescribes. For Li is determined by Hsin and Hsin prescribes human act, Hsin and Li is one and the same. Therefore, in Lu-Wang, 'Hsin-Chü-Li' (Hsin contains Li) most be understood as 'Li is inherently in Hsin'. On the other hand, Hsin-Chü-Li could have a number of different meanings in Ch'eng-Chu. This paper examines the relation between Hsin and Li in the ontological aspect, in the moral aspect, and finally the function and the limitatiion of Hsin. I believe 'Hsin-Chü-Li' in one of the best ways to grasp the characteristics of Ch'eng-Chu's moral philosophy.