|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
對牟宗三以「覺悟說」詮釋朱陸之爭的方法論反思=A methodological reflection on the interpretation of the dispute between Chu Hsi and Lu Xiang-Shan by MouZong-Sang through his intuitivism |
|
|
|
| Author |
杜保瑞 (著)=Duh, Bau-ruei (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
國文學報
|
|---|
| Volume | n.53 |
|---|
| Date | 2013.06 |
|---|
| Pages | 149 - 174 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立臺灣師範大學國文學系 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://140.122.115.142/ntnu-web/index.php
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者為國立臺灣大學哲學系教授。 |
|---|
| Keyword | 方法論=Methodology; 朱陸之爭=The dispute between Chu Hsi and Lu Xiang-Shan; 牟宗三=Mou, Zong-Sang; 覺悟=Intuitivism; 頓悟=an insight model |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文討論牟宗三先生於《從陸象山到劉蕺山》書中對朱陸之爭的意見，本文之作採地毯式逐章逐節討論的模式，聚焦於第二章的後段。在該書第二章後半段的討論中，牟先生愈發能認識朱熹學說的要點，因此就愈發地將象山之說轉入覺悟、頓悟等近禪之型態來詮釋，雖然，這正是為反駁朱熹以象山是禪的攻擊。本文之作，即是要指出，並不存在牟先生所說的朱熹認知型的理論模式，牟先生討論的結果，只是嚴重地犧牲了朱熹文本的哲學意旨而已。
This article focuses on discussing the interpretation of the dispute between Chu Hsi and Lu,Xiang-Shan by Mou, Zong-Sang in his book of “From Lu, Xiang-Shan to Liu Ji-Shan”. In Mou, Zong-Sang’s opinion, he always supports Lu Xiang-Shan and opposes Chu Hsi. But his criticizing opining are all basing on Lu’s original talking only with a Neo-Confucianism linguistic transformation. At the later part of Chapter 2 in this book, it seems that when he finds more and more reasonable points in Chu Hsi thinking, then he jump into intuitivism in order to defend for Lu, Xiang-Shan, and thus made himself falling into Zen Buddhism’s theoretical style. Therefore, Mou suggests some passive points to define Chu Hsi’s thinking which including “learning from the base and reaching to the top”, and “an acquired efforts”. Then he creates some other positive theories to describe Lu, Xiang-Shan what are “intuitivism”, “an insight model”, “conscience arising autonomy”, “sanctity innately”. Besides, Chu Hsi had once criticized Lu, Xiang-Shan as having a bad personal character, but Mou did never taken serious with it. Mou, Zong-Sang argues that Chu’s practical theory is a kind of knowledge orientation, however, Lu’s is individual’s innate willing, therefore, Chu’s critic will be useless. This article will point that there dosen’t exist so-called Chu Hsi’s theories suggested by Mou, and those theories belonging to Lu Xiang-Shan said by Mou are also existed in Chu’s philosophy. Mou, Zong-Sang’s understand about the dispute between Chu and Lu seriously hurts the correct meaning of Chu Hsi philosophy. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言 150
二、以下學上達說批評朱熹 151
三、以後天積習說批評朱熹 154
四、以本心呈現說詮釋象山 156
五、以覺悟說詮釋象山 159
六、以頓悟說詮釋象山 161
七、以內聖之學詮釋象山 163
八、為象山氣質粗暴做辯護 166
九、結論 169 |
|---|
| ISSN | 10196706 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 327 |
|---|
| Created date | 2014.07.24 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2020.01.22 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
