從余英時〈名教危機與魏晉士風的演變〉一文中“情”之論述及其商榷談玄論與魏晉士風的合理關涉

余英時〈名教危機與魏晉士風的演變〉一文向來廣為學界所援引，是當代魏晉文化史研究的重要典範；然文中涉及魏晉有關「情」的論述部分，研究者認為仍有商榷斟酌的必要，因此從中揭示出「王弼之聖人有情論與魏晉尚情士風的關涉」及「郭象注莊之俗內與方外的衝突是魏晉『任情不羈』之士風的哲學基礎」兩個面向，並一一予以檢討，發現余氏未能有效地釐清「聖人論」與「我輩說」的區隔，遂造成論「情」文獻判讀上的滑失，推究其因當在余氏尚未於「情」論之玄學義涵上立穩腳跟，便轉進社會層面去發揮，故不免有附會及簡化玄論之失。本文又進一步以體現郭象自生獨化之玄理的「無情說」取代王弼「聖人有情說」與郭象「稱情而直往」的聖人說，試圖為情論與魏晉士風建構一新的連結關係。透過對余文的商榷，玄論與魏晉士風在「情」這一條路上先行分手又再度言合的歷程，也正是研究者面對「科際整合」與「專業取向」兩端學術向度之對話下的反省與實踐。

關鍵字

情；禮；聖人論；我輩說；魏晉士風

並列摘要

Yu Ying-shih's article ”Mingjiao weiji yu Weijin shifeng de yanbian” (The crisis of Ethical Codes and the transformation of intellectualism in We-Jin dynasties) has been frequently cited, as it is an important contemporary scholarly work on Wei-Jin culture. However, it is necessary to reconsider its view on qing (affection). This article will set out to approach this issue by clarifying two particular points: (1) links between Wang Bi's theory of shengren you qing (sainthood with affection) and Wei-Jin's pro-qing intellectualism and (2) the conflict in Guo Xiang's commentaries on Zhuang Zi being the philosophical basis of Wei-Jin's intellectual milieu-renqingbuji (affection without constraint). After a careful examination, the paper will demonstrate that Yu failed to distinguish shengrenlun (view of sainthood) from wuobeishuo (view of selfhood). This might contribute to Yu's defective discussion of qing. Yu's (far-fetched and oversimplified) argument can be further traced back to its not being firmly grounded on the metaphysical meaning of qing before its elucidation on the social dimension of qing. This paper further proposes to replace Wang Bi's shengren you qing and Guo Xiang's view of sainthood with Guo Xiang's wuqingshuo (view of being without affection), embodying Guo's autonomous metaphysics. This reinterpretation attempts to establish certain links between qing and Wei-Jing's intellectualism. The reconsideration of Yu's article, brings to light the course in which xuanlun and Wei-Jin's intellectualism departed from and then coalesce with qing. This study also reflects and embodies its author's attempt to strike a balance between the bipolar academic orientations of ”inter-disciplinary” and ”discipline-specific.”