關於明清儒學轉向,學界主流看法是由明代心學轉向清代考據學。然而,這一說法卻值得商榷,因為它會引發諸如體認性的心學如何轉向、銜接知識性的考據學的問題。實際上,明清儒學轉向並非是由心學向考據學直接過渡的「單線轉向」,而是包含兩條路線:一是明清義理學的轉向,即由心學轉向氣學;二是明清考據學的轉向,即由以考據輔翼心學轉向以考據反對心學。由心學到考據學的明清儒學轉向正是這兩條轉向路徑的綜合結果。在此,不得不提及焦竑。他將考據學的智識化視角、方法融攝於心學,以文本分析、論證的方式來揭示心學價值,開闢了晚明心學的智識化向度。焦竑之學恰好使明清儒學的義理與考據兩條獨立平行的轉向路徑交匯於晚明,實現了心學與考據學之間的重心轉移。
As to the transition of Ming-Qing Confucianism, the mind teaching turns to text criticism is the main idea accepted by the academic circle. However, it is doubtful, which may result in problems such as the process of the intuitive mind teaching turns to the intellectual text criticism. The transition of Ming-Qing Confucianism, in fact, is not the one line turning from mind teaching to text criticism. It includes two ways: one is the idea turning from mind teaching to Qi teaching; the other is the text criticism turning from the positive attitude towards mind teaching to the negative attitude towards it in the context of text criticism. Actually, the two turning ways result in the transition of Ming-Qing Confucianism. Here, we have to mention Chiao Hung. He opens a new face of mind teaching by adding the intellectual viewpoint and method coming from text criticism into it. Therefore, Chiao's teaching makes the two parallel turning ways converge at one point where the mind teaching and text criticism change the center of gravity.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。