自然与自由的统一：对庄子与康德的比较研究

【作者】 路传颂；

【导师】 谢阳举；

【作者基本信息】 西北大学 ， 中国史， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 当代社会迫切需要重新思考人与自然之间的关系,中国古代哲学家不遗余力地探讨“天人之际”,为当代人提供了丰富的智识资源；西方哲学对自然与自由的关系的讨论同样是对这一问题的思考。庄子与康德对此问题的看法在各自的文化传统中都具有典型性,对庄子与康德的比较研究有益于当代人对这一问题的重新思考。庄子与康德二人都把自然分为可知的自然和不可知的自然两个维度,即“道”与“物”、“物自身”与显象以及感性自然或感官世界。就不可知的自然与自由的关系而言,庄子的道与康德的物自身概念在各自的思想体系中,占据着相似的地位,发挥着相似的功能,都是自由的超感性根据,为自由提供可能性。物和显象属于可知的领域。庄子认为实体化、客体化的物是从气化之流的整体中分化出来的,是一种暂时的形态；物与物之间处于彼此对立、相互依赖关系中,是有限的、不自由的。康德认为物(显象)本质上是物自身在心灵中的再现,根据心灵用以描述自然的范畴,物遵循严格的因果必然律,没有自由。庄子与康德二人也都把自我分为真实自我与经验自我两个方面。庄子一方面主张扩大自我认同的范围,不受躯体的限制而把整个自然作为精神的府宅,另一方面主张虚化“成心”亦即经验自我,使心灵保持开放,不受任何教条式的思想、观念的束缚。康德认为自我不在自然之内,而是自然的边界、自然的立法者。康德把纯粹理性作为真实自我,实际上是用理性占据了物自身的位置,并把认识论中的消极本体转变成实践中的积极本体。与此不同,庄子否认任何单一的心灵属性或精神力量有资格成为真实自我,而是把“德之和”作为人的本质自我。康德的“先验自由”是一种与自然不相容的自由,不存在于自然之内；康德的“自律”应该被修正为一种理想化的后天自由,是拥有自由意志的主体应该追求的目标。庄子的“自然”概念本身就含有自由的涵义,自然与自由是相容的；“逍遥”和康德的“自律”一样也是一种理想化的后天自由,但“自律”是理性的道德自由,伴随着人的感性被压抑的痛苦意识,而“逍遥”则是一种审美化的自由,表现为心灵的诸种精神力量之间的和谐。康德的自然概念与自由概念之间存在着一个鸿沟,需要用审美和目的论来沟通。康德以“美”统一了自然与自由,但自然与自由的统一只是通往自由的桥梁,康德的最终目标是要超越自然,达到自由的彼岸。康德在目的论中所承诺的自然与自由的统一,是在以人为目的、以自然为工具的等级关系中的统一。庄子认为根源于“成心”的自我中心主义和人类中心主义使人与自然相互对立,并使人自身陷入不自由的生存状态之中。康德认为“自律”的关键在于一种思维方式的转变,庄子也同样认为“逍遥”有赖于一种“用心”方式的转变,并寄希望于通过一种审美的“用心”方式,克服自我中心主义和人类中心主义,恢复人与自然之间的和谐。自然与自由的统一,对庄子来说不是桥梁,而是终极目标。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is imperative that we should review the relationship between human and nature. Ancient Chinese philosophers try their best to explore the ship relationship between universe and human, whose achievements provide us with a wealth of intellectual resources. Western philosophical discussion on the relationship between nature and freedom also involves the problem of the relationship between man and nature. The thought of Zhangzi and Kant on this problem were typical in their respective culture. Comparative studies of the ideas of Zhuangzi and Kant, therefore, will help us to rethink this problem.Zhuangzi and Kant were divided nature into unknowable nature and knowable nature:they are the Dao(道)and Wu(物\things) for Zhuangzi and the thing-in-itself and appearances and Sensible World for Kant. As far as the relationship between unknown nature and freedom is concerned, the concept of Dao and thing-in-itself play a similar function in their respective Ideology, both of which are transcendental ground of freedom and provide the possibility for freedom. Wu and appearances belong to knowable territory. Zhuangzi considered Wu that substantial and objective as a temporary pattern that Diverged from the entirety of the transformation of Qi(气\matter-energy), and all things on earth are opposed to each other, and at the same time interdependent, for the reason that everything is limited, and not free. Kant thought that appearances are essentially represented in the mind by thing-in-itself. According to the natural categories that mind could be used to describe the nature, all things must comply with the causal inevitable law. So, there is no freedom in the natural areas.Zhuangzi and Kant divided self-concept into true self and experiential self. On the one hand, Zhuangzi advocated expanding the scope of self-identity, free from the limitations of the body to the whole of nature and regard the whole nature as the house of spirit, on the other hand he advocated weakening the cheng-xin (成心\fixed minds) ie. Experiential self, and make spirit remain open and free from the shackles of any dogmatic ideas and concepts. Kant thought that the true self is not within nature, but a boundary of nature and legislator of nature. Kant treated pure reason as as the true self of human being occupies the position of thing-in-itself and transformed the negative noumenon of epistemological into positive noumenon of the the practical activiticy. On the contrary, Zhuangzi deny any single mental property or spiritual force is eligible to become a true self, but the de-zhi-he (德之和\harmony of virtues)" virtue" as the essence of the human self.Kant’s transcendental freedom is incompatible with nature, not exist within nature; and his autonomy should be corrected to an acquired idealized freedom which should be the main goal of rational agent which has free will. The conception of Zhuangzi’s zi-ran(自然\nature) that itself contains the meaning of freedom, and his xiao-yao(逍遥\free and easy) is an acquired idealized freedom like Kant’s autonomy, however, autonomy is a rational moral freedom that along with the awareness of the suffering caused by perceptual restraining, while xiao-yao is a freedom associated with the aesthetic sense of freedom, which is the harmony between variety of variety of mental abilities.There is a gulf between Kant’s conception of nature and freedom, thence Kant wanted to connected nature and freedom by aesthetics and teleological. Kant unified nature and freedom through the aesthetic judgement of taste, but this unity is just a bridge to freedom, whereas Kant’s ultimate goal is to go beyond the nature to reach the other side world of freedom. The kind of unity that Kant envisaged in teleological is actually a hierarchical relationship between human being and nature that human is the purpose of nature and nature is the tool of the people. Zhuangzi believe that egocentrism and anthropocentrism, rooted in Cheng-xin, make human and nature opposite to each other and bring about a non-free survival. Kant argued that the autonomy lies in the transformation of a way of thinking, and Zhuangzi also think that xiao-yao depends on the transformation of the use way of xin(心\heart-mind). Zhuangzi hoped that through the survival of an aesthetic, human could overcome egocentrism and anthropocentrism through aesthetic life, and restore the harmony between man and nature. For Zhuangzi, the unity of nature and freedom is not a bridge but the ultimate goal.更多还原