本体的困惑—熊十力哲学思想研究

【作者】 曾海龙；

【导师】 杨泽波；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 中国哲学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 熊十力哲学思想的根本要点在于说明万事万物和本心本体的关系,彰显了道德的主体的自发自觉,并在此基础上建立起道德的形上学。境论是熊十力哲学的核心。熊十力认为,本体既是宇宙实体,也是人之本心,并通过翕辟成变和相反相成的法则将此二者沟通为一。就宇宙实体而言,具复杂性,因而能起变化。心物都为本体变化之势用,而不即是本体。但心毕竟能主宰物而不为物所主宰,能显发本体之德,亦可说心即是本体。宇宙实体即是大全,自身即能创生宇宙万物而亦无所作意,因而是即仁即寂,即刚健即寂静,无为而无不为的。宇宙实体之德即是生德,人之本心是宇宙实体之辟势,因而有宇宙的大心之德用。从一本的立场出发,熊十力反对理气(器)二分的观点,认为理和气(器)是一种体用关系。在这样的结构中,熊十力的本体论成了“二本”之学：一方面是绝对的宇宙实体,一方面是人之本心。熊十力试图以宇宙生成的方式将此二者沟通为一,但此一思路在后康德哲学的背景下是明显缺乏说服力的。量论讨论了熊十力对知识和证体问题的基本看法。一方面,熊十力继承了旧唯识学的基本义理和问题意识,对宇宙万物如何可能进行了说明,是为俗谛；另一方面又将现象的根源归结到本体,认为哲学的根本问题在于证体,是为真谛。在知识论的问题中,熊十力罗列了认识的基本条件,阐述了认识发生的机理,并讨论了知识的基本范畴。但由于熊十力对近代以来西方哲学的发展了解不够,因而造成了诸多的问题。熊十力认为,对本体的说明则有两种方式：一是用遮诠的方法说明本体不是什么,一是用证会的办法直接体证本体即是人之本心。即一方面遮拨现象,一方面实证本体。前者是逻辑进路,后者是功夫论。可以说,量论的根本目的还在于说明本体,因而说其量论亦是本体论的组成部分。心性论则延续了宋明儒的基本课题,并继承了孟子学和陆王心学的基本进路,以心、性、理、命、仁等基本概念和问题为中心而展开。熊十力的心性论,凸显出了道德的主体与道德本体的功能义,体现了刚健不已、生生不息的人生观,以及绝对自律的道德意识。但熊十力的心性论,无法说明道德本体的内容是如何可能的。我们认为,本体必然是功能义(能义)与原理义(所义)的统一。功能义是指本体的能力,即良知本心的自发自觉。此种能力是“天之所与我者”,为先天的。原理义是从人文历史和社会生活中掘发出来的,有着发生学意义上的来源,但在道德实践的具体境遇中有着先验或先在性质。本体既具功能义,又具原理义,那么要建立本体论就必须对这两方面都有适当的安顿。而熊十力的本体只能证成先天的能义而不能证成所义。也就是说,熊十力只肯定了本体的自发自觉,而对本体的内容是如何可能的无有理论上的说明。导致这一问题的原因在于熊十力认为本体性质只能是先天的,而对习染等经验内容持负面的看法。人文历史和社会生活无法成为本体内容的来源,那么本体的原理义是无法证成的。熊十力虽然在一定程度上肯定了现象的真实性,肯定了人文历史与社会生活的价值,但在其本体论的架构中,人文历史与社会生活的本体性质是无法证成的。这样,熊十力的道德本体论是不完整的。另外,由于熊十力坚持宇宙实体为绝对一本的立场,导致其对恶之问题的看法也产生了不可避免的矛盾。熊十力的形上学包括两个方面：一是在肯定一宇宙实体的基础上说明宇宙生成,并以进化论模式说明人之本心如何即是宇宙之心,彰显了人生的本来面目即是生生不已,精进不息的；二是从道德本心的角度,以唯识的义理来说明宇宙万物乃至宇宙本体即是人之本心的开显,宇宙万物和宇宙实体因人之本心而证成其存在,并具有了价值和意义。前者是宇宙论形上学,后者是道德的形上学。熊十力囿于其宇宙生成论的立场,在其试图建构的道德的形上学中产生了不可避免的矛盾,此一矛盾为其后学牟宗三所继承。论文在后论部分试图指出熊十力和牟宗三在此一问题上的困境,并讨论现代哲学背景下的道德的形上学是如何可能的。更多还原

【Abstract】 The fundamental point of Shili Xiong’s philosophy is that he establishes The Moral Subject and The Metaphysics of Morals by illustrating the relationship of the world and Ben Xin(本心).Ontology is the core of Shili Xiong’s philosophy. He considers that the noumenon is not only cosmic substance but also Ben Xin, and they will be combined by a dialectic relection of beings and becoming and the law of opposite but complementary. Since the cosmic substance is complexity, it has the ability of diversification. Meanwhile, Ben Xin and objects are the results of the diversification. We have the conclusion that Ben Xin and objects are not the noumenon directly. However, Ben Xin predominates the objects and has the function of noumenon. According to this reason, we can say that Ben Xin is noumenon.Cosmic substance is Da Quan(大全)and can create all the things in the cosmos. So, we can say it is Ren and comfort, energetic and quiet. It does nothing, however, it does everything. The virtue of cosmic substance is creation, and Ben Xin is the expanded state of cosmic substance. With an opinion that the world has only one noumenon, Shili Xiong thinks the relation of Li(理)and Qi (气)is like the relation of Ti(体)and Yong(用),and they are not separated. So we can see, Shili Xiong’s ontology has two noumenons: one is the absolute cosmic substance, and the other is Ben Xin. Meanwhile, Shili Xiong attempts to combine them by the creation of cosmos. However, it is not convincing in the background of contemporary philosophy.We attempt to discuss Shili Xiong’s basic opinions on knowledge and proving the being of noumenon in Liang Lun(量论).On one side, inheriting the basic teachings of The old Mere-Consciousness Theory(唯识学)and its consciousness of problem, he tries to explain the possibility of the being of cosmos. This is called Su Di(俗谛).On the other side, Shili Xiong takes the noumenon as the root of phenomenon, and he believes that the basic mission of philosophy is to prove the being of noumenon. And this is called Zhen Di(真谛)In the theory of knowledge, Shili Xiong sets out the basic condition of cognition, elaborates the beginning mechanism of cognition, and tries to discuss the basic categories of knowledge. However, because of knowing little about the development of modern western philosophy, Shili Xiong gets many problems. He explains noumenon by two ways: one is to explain noumenon is not the things he enumerates, and the other is to directly feel that the noumenon is Ben Xin(本心).The former is a method of logic, and the latter is Kong Fu theory(工夫论).So we can say that the ultimate goal of Liang Lun is to clarify the noumenon, and in this sense, we will say that Liang Lun is a part of ontology.The theory of inwardness inherits the scholars’ subjects of Song and Ming dynasties, and it also inherits the thoughts of Mencius, Jiuyuan Lu and Yangming Wang. This theory unfolds itself with a central discussion of Benxin, Xing(性),Li, Ming(命),Ren(仁),etc. Shili Xiong’s theory of inwardness highlights the functions of moral subject and moral noumenon. It represents a philosophy of energetic life and perpetual becoming, and it also represents the moral consciousness of self-discipline. However, since he does not confirm the noumenal function of humanistic history and social life, he can not prove the existence of the principles of moral noumenon, which find the moral noumenon theory from common value consciousness. An integral moral noumenon should be the unity of function and principle. We should get the moral noumenon theory from the unknown awareness, from which comes humanistic history and social life. The moral noumenon theory has a preexistent meaning in moral practice. In addition, Shili Xiong’s theory has an inevitable contradiction about evil, because he persists that the world has only one noumenon called cosmic substance.Shili Xiong’s metaphysic has two sides:through the first side, we can see he explains the becoming of cosmos on the basis of confirming only one cosmic substance, and by using evolutionism theory, he explains how Ben Xin is also the hart of cosmos. These tell us that human should live an energetic and positive life. On the other side, he tells us that Ben Xin is the cosmos noumenon, the being and the value of cosmos noumenon need the existence of Ben Xin. The former is called Cosmologic Metaphysics, and the later is The Metaphysics of Morals. Now we can see, that Shili Xiong’s metaphysics of morals has an inevitable contradiction, because of his cosmogonical point of view, and the contradiction is inherited by Zongsan Mou—his pupil. In the conclusion of this dissertation, I will point out this dilemma and discuss how the metaphysics of moral is possible in the background of modern philosophy.更多还原