孟子人性論現代詮釋的爭議與釐清

A clarification on the Dispute about Mencius theory of human nature in modern age.

陳姿伶(Tzu-Ling Chen)

指導教授 ： 袁保新

淡江大學/文學院/中國文學系碩士班/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2012.01144

摘要

孟子之「性善論」，就「性」一詞，其意義上承《中庸》之「天命之謂性，率性之謂道」。就「善」一詞，含攝之「仁」、「義」、「禮」、「智」，上承《大學》之「明德」、「修身」之道。其對「德」之意義，乃以先王之道，為其典範。如何將「性善」之可能性，落實於「生命境界」？踐德和修道，為其歷程。「以心言性」和「以生言性」下，所理解之「性」，其意義之歸屬，和其屬性，自然有所不同。關於「人性論」之問題，自古至今，對其之詮釋，不斷的有很多分歧出現，何以在諸多分歧中，所引發之爭議，至今仍無法出現統一之說法？在於其對於問題背後，所闡述之重心有所不同，對於不同之準則，究竟該如何判立？關鍵在於何者能解決當今之時代困境，面臨社會之改變，能應對和調整，為本文之判斷條件和標準。以此，在本文以孟子人性論之現代爭議，作為探討孟學，和還原孟學之動機和方式。

觀乎孟學孕育之歷史背景，從其學術淵源，在近當代之論點，皆對周代之文化背景，有所省思。但對於周代之文化體制，卻有不同之見解，郭沫若先生認為周代政治社會為「奴隸制度」、杜正勝先生認為，周代政治社會為「城邦文化」，在唐君毅先生和牟宗三先生之立場下，認定其為「封建制度」。在對周代政治社會之不同見解中，「人」之意義和價值，亦會隨之有所改變和不同。相繼之，關於「性善」之「性」，該如何解讀？自然會出現分化。在近當代之分化之詮釋下，以傅佩榮先生之「性向善」，和李明輝先生、林安梧先生對「性向善」之質疑，為一項重大之詮釋爭議 。此外，「惡」之來源為何？乃面對「性向善」和「性本善」爭議之時，需先釐清之問題。「惡」之問題是在「理氣二分」或「理氣合一」之前提下而成立？「心性天一也」、「天道性命相貫通」、「盡心知性以知天」」，在《孟子》文本中，「天人合一」為其「心性論」之基本理路，「道德思想」之體系。無論「性向善」或「性本善」，皆在承認「天人合一」為前提下，所進行之詮釋系統。但針對「天人合一」之系統下，所詮釋之「道德問題」，亦引發出諸多爭議，首先，《大學》和《中庸》為漢代文獻？或是戰國時代之文獻？其次，「道德問題」在論孟文本中，確曾多次與「天」同時出現，勞思光先生之「義命分立」說，將「天」從「道德問題」中排除，將「天」視為與「道德問題」」無關，此「道德主體性」，與唐君毅先生之「義命合一」，以「感通」而言之「性情心」，「天人合一」為宗旨之中國哲學系統，有極大之「對立性」。有「對立性」之意義時，則乃有待於進一步作商榷和研究。

關鍵字

「性善論」 ； 「天人合一」 ； 「義命關係」 ； 「道德主體性」 ； 「感通」 ； 「理氣 觀」

並列摘要

The “nature” in “the theory of benevolent human nature” of Mencius has the meaning derived from “destiny as the nature, following the nature as Tao” from “Doctrine of the Mean.” The word “benevolent” has the meaning of “humanity,” “righteous,” “ritual,” and “wisdom” from the doctrine of virtue” and self cultivation” derived from “Great Learning.” The meaning of “virtue” is exampled from the doctrine of the ancient kings. How to practice the possibility of “benevolent human nature” in the “state of life”? Practice virtue and self cultivation are the process. With “discuss nature with heart” and “discuss nature with life,” the meaning and the characteristic of “nature” are different. From ancient time to date, there are still many disagreements to the interpretation of “human nature.” Why there is no unified explanation in the disputes result from the disagreement? How to determine the different standards lie behind the problems that the focus of the discussion is different? The key points of what can solve the contemporary difficulties, and how to respond and adjusts when facing the changes in the society are the determination requirement and standard of this article. With this in mind, this article discusses the Study of Mencius and revert the motif and method of Mencius with the modern dispute in the theory of human nature of Mencius.

Looking at the historic background of Mencius, from the academic origin to the viewpoints of the modern time, the culture background of Zhou Dynasty is being reflected. However, people have different opinions as to the culture system of Zhou Dynasty. Mr. Kuo Mo-Ru thought that the political society of Zhou Dynasty was the “slave system,” while Mr. Du Zheng-Sheng considered it as the “state culture.” Mr. Tang Jun-I and Mr. Mo Zhong-Shan determined it as the “feudalism.” With different opinions on the political society of Zhou Dynasty, the meaning and value of “human” would have been changed and differed. How should we interpret the “nature” in “the benevolent nature?” Of course it would have differentiations. In the interpretation of the modern differentiations, the “human nature has innate tendency toward benevolent” proposed by Mr. Fu Pei-Rong, and the question to “human nature has innate tendency toward benevolent” of Mr. Lee Ming-Hui and Mr. Lin An-Wu are the major dispute in interpretation. Furthermore, what is the origin of “vice?” This is the question to be cleared before discussing the dispute between “human nature has innate tendency toward benevolent” and “human nature is born benevolent.” Is the question of “vice” formed under the premise of “diverse ration and spirit” or “the combination of ration and spirit?” “Heart and nature are united,” “the doctrine of heaven and life are connected,” and “understand the heart and nature is to understand heaven.” In the book of “Mencius,” “the combination of heaven and human” is the basic of “the theory of heart” and the system of “moral thinking.” Whether it is “human nature has innate tendency toward benevolent” or “human nature is born benevolent,” it is the interpretation system under the recognition of “the combination of heaven and human.” However, the “moral issues” interpreted under the system of “the combination of heaven and human” have also intrigued many disputes. First of all, are “Great Learning” and “The Doctrine of the Mean” the literature of Han Dynasty or Warring State Period? Secondly, the “moral issue” in the book of “Mencius” has appeared with “heaven” many times. The “diversity of righteous and life” proposed by Mr. Lao Si-Guang excludes “heaven” from “moral issue” that “heaven” has nothing to do with “moral issue.” The “subjectivity of moral” and the “combination of righteous and life” by Mr. Tang Jun-I has great “opposition” with the motto of Chinese philosophy of “the combination of heaven and human” when speaking of the “heart” of “connection feeling.” The meaning of “opposition” is still to be confirmed and studied.

並列關鍵字

“the theory of benevolent human nature,” ； the combination of heaven and human,” ； “the relationship of righteous and life,” ； “subjectivity of moral,” ； “connection feeling,” ； “the aspect of ration and spirit”

參考文獻

16.吳建明：〈先秦儒家「天人合德」思想之演變歷程探析〉《玄奘人文學報》(第8期，2008年7月)。

4.林維杰：〈象徵與譬喻：儒家經典詮釋的兩條進路〉《中央大學人文學報》(第34期，2008年4月)。

7.曾昭旭：〈愛情之本體論與工夫論─再論心性學與愛情學〉《淡江中文學報》(第14期，2006年6月)。

6.何仁富：〈唐君毅論儒家「三祭」宗教精神的形上意義〉《鵝湖月刊》(第33卷第12期總號396)。

13.劉滄龍：〈「性自命出」的情性論與禮樂觀」〉《鵝湖月刊》。