【作者】 邹晓东；

【导师】 谢文郁；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 宗教学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 在方法论方面,本研究提出“‘文本—研究者自己—所有其他读者’三方互动的文本研究游戏”这一概念。以此观之,宋明与清代《大学》、《中庸》研究,均有其结构性缺陷。宋明道统论以“道统本义”为“最佳义理”,结果致使各方各派径以“自己所理解的现有的最佳义理”混同于“文本本义”。这种混同赋予各方各派以绝对性底气固执己见,结果既阻碍了“研究者自己—所有其他读者”的互动,亦终结了“研究者自己”的文本研究(阅读)活动。最后只剩下门户之见的自我重复与消极对峙。为从根本上摆脱这种困境,文本研究必须放弃“道统本义”与“文本本义”预设。与宋明重哲学性义理相反,清代儒学以名物制度研究为本位。清儒本着名物制度意义上的“道统本义”信念,欲逐《大学》、《中庸》于“正典”之外。清学以这种方式退出《大学》、《文本》研究,这既能表明“道统本义”信念在传统学术中根深蒂固,同时更反映了“片断性考据”不适切《大学》、《中庸》研究(导致三方互动游戏中止)。作为方法论的基本原则,本研究建议取消“本义”预设,而代之以“文本的实在性”与“文本的可理解性”概念。“研究者自己—所有其他读者”围绕“文本”展开互动(相遇、碰撞、融合),此乃彰显文本实在性的关键环节。在内容方面,本研究围绕“境界论与起点论之争”问题展开。在我看来,这个问题是儒家哲学的根源性动力。境界论和教化概念密切相关。《大学》所谓“明德”指称人事人为的“最高境界”；《大学》文本即旨在教授这种人为的基本原则或标准,此即所谓“教化”。而在标准既定(由境界论—教化提供)的情况下,能否坚决执行标准就成了“人为”的关键所在。《大学》因此最重视意志软弱问题(“诚其意”),而非知识问题(“格物致知”)。然而《中庸》却在孔子“过犹不及”、“人皆曰‘予知’,驱而纳诸罟擭陷阱之中,而莫之知辟也。人皆日‘予知’,择乎中庸而不能期月守也”评论的基础上指出：问题的真正关键,不在于知而不能行,而恰恰在于没有真正的知。“智者过之”现象更是把“如何才能正确地致知”问题推上了桌面。作为解决问题的方案,《中庸》重新起用不为《论语》重视的“性”与“天命”概念,提出“天命之谓性,率性之谓道”。“率性”,我们解释为“从真正的自己出发”。《中庸》由此将境界论(终点)问题,转化为出发点(起点)问题。在后半篇,《中庸》进而以“诚”来界定“率性／从自己出发”。不过,在浓厚的境界论(终点)意识中,《中庸》还是不可避免地提出了“什么是真正的诚”、“如何达到真正的诚”这样的问题。在此类追问与谈论中,“诚／率性”就丧失了出发点地位。“境界论与起点论之争”,在《中庸》“诚”论中,表现得相当突出。对历史上的儒家来说,境界论与起点论缺一不可。可是,境界论与起点论之争现象,似乎又意味着两者不可得兼。本研究接下来试图借助比较研究,借鉴西方哲学有关真理问题的术语和论证使用论证语言,对境界论与起点论之争问题作进一步推敲。我们主要参考了康德的“根本恶(原罪)”概念,以及齐克果对于苏格拉底式和真理教师式两种真理认识论的生存分析。(《大学》、《中庸》与康德、齐克果的这种可比性,意味着《大学》、《中庸》哲学本质上可归入宗教哲学范畴)最终,我们指出：境界论与起点论之争,内含深刻的真理认识论之争。揭示出这一点,不仅有助于把境界论与起点论之争问题的探讨引向深入,而且对当代中国人理解自己的生存也颇具参考价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 In terms of methodology, the study proposes the idea of "the game of text study by the tripe interaction of’Text—the researcher—other readers.The Confucian orthodoxy in Song and Ming Dynasties regarded the original meaning of orthodoxy as "the best meaning-patter", which resulted in the confusion of "the best meaning-patter in the individual understanding of diverse schools" and "the original meaning of the text". The confusion had given absolute stubbornness to various school, and had not only hindered the interaction between the researcher himself and other readers, but also terminated the researcher’s own researching on the text. At last, what remained was the self-repetition and passive confrontation of the sectarian views. So in order to break off the dilemma, the text research must give up the premise of "original meaning of orthodoxy" and "original meaning of the text".Contrary to the Song and Ming scholars who emphasized the philosophical meaning-patter in their study, the scholars in Qing Dynasty had taken the system of naming and description of things as the standard. Qing Confucian scholars held the faith of "original meaning of orthodoxy", aiming to expel the Great Learning and The Central Harmony off the canon. So, the Qing studies had quitted from the study of the Great Learning and The Central Harmony. The fact showed that the faith of the original meaning of orthodoxy in traditional academic study was so deep-rooted, meanwhile, reflected that Fragment textual criticism, which leaded to the termination of the game of the triple interaction, was not suitable for the study of the Great Learning and The Central Harmony. As the basic principle of the methodology, the study suggested that the premise of original meaning should be replaced by the concept of "the reality of the text" and "the understandability of the text". it is the key link to show the reality of the text by the interaction between the researcher self and other readers, but all these should be text-centered.In terms of content, the study had developed around the debate of Spiritual Status and the starting points which is the original dynamic force for the Confucian philosophy.The theory Spiritual Status has close relationship with the concept of moralization. in the Great Learning,"to illustrate the illustrious virtue" refers to the highest Spiritual Status of human thought reached also by human themselves; the text of the Great Learning, aimed to teacher the basic principles and criteria by man-made, thus, it is the exact meaning of moralization. However, under the given circumstances of given criteria which has been set by the theory Spiritual Status-moralization, it is the man-made key points whether the criteria can be firmly executed. So, the Great Learning paid special attention to the weak will, not to knowledge.However, based on Confucius’s remarks, such as "to go beyond is as wrong as to fall short","men all say’we are wise’", but when driven forward and taken in a net, a trap or a pit-fall, there is not one who knows how to find a way of escape. Men all say, we are wise but in finding the true central clue and balance in their moral being and fowllowing the line of conduct which is in accordance with it, they are not able to keep it for a round month," The Central Harmony points out:the true key to the problem does not lie in the fact that to know but to be unable to conduct, but in that there is no true knowledge. On the other hand, the phenomena of "the wise going beyond" has made an obvious occurrence to the question "how to gain the true knowledge". So, as a plan to solve the problem, The Central Harmony has to reuse the concepts of Xing(our being or our characters) and "heavenly ordinance", and put forward "The ordinance of Heaven is what we call the law of our being. To fulfill the law of our being,But in the deep conciousness of the theory Spiritual Status or the ending points, The Central Harmony had unavoidably put forward such questions as "what is true Sincerity","how to reach the true Sincerity." By making such a detailed inquiry and discussion,"Sincerity/to fulfill the law of our being" has not been the starting point. Thus, the debate of Spiritual Status and Starting points, in The Central Harmony’s argumentation to Sincerity, had protruding performance.In the history, To the Confucian scholars, Neither Spiritual Status nor starting point can be lacked. But the debate between the two seemed that they could not be gained at the same time. The study, then, tries to borrow the views of comparison from western philosophy. The terms to discuss Truth in western philosophy and the language of argumentation to argue were borrowed, by which the debate was more deeply deliberated. I mainly consulted two aspects:one is Kant’s concept of "original evil(original sin)", another is Kierkegaard’s existential analysis of truth Epistemology between Socratic way of truth-seeking and truth teachers’way of truth-teaching. At last, we point out that the debate between Spiritual Status and starting point includes the debate of truth Epistemology. That we reveal this fact not only leads us to a deeper exploration of the debate of Spiritual Status and starting point, but also provides referential significance for Chinese people at present to understand our own existence.更多还原