論牟宗三先生對老子形上思想之定位

doi:10.29653/LS.200212.0001

機構典藏 > College of Liberal Arts > Graduate Institute & Department of Chinese > Journal Article > Item 987654321/12842

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/12842

Title:	論牟宗三先生對老子形上思想之定位
Other Titles:	Mr. Mou Tsung-san's Onientation to Laotze's Metaphysical Thoughts
Authors:	高柏園
Contributors:	淡江大學中國文學學系
Keywords:	周文疲弊;境界型態;實有型態;實踐哲學;無;無為;道;the cultural bankruptcy of the Chou Dynasty;state mode, being mode;practical philosophy;Non-Existence;inaction;The Fundamental Truth
Date:	2002-12
Issue Date:	2013-04-17 11:30:23 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	臺北市：東方人文學術研究基金會•中國哲學研究中心
Abstract:	老子思想是道家思想的主要根據，也是決定道家思想性格的重要依據。我們可以說，掌握了老子思想也就掌握了道家思想、進而也就能準確地區分儒道思想之異同。在當代學者對老子思想之研究中，牟宗三先生的立場最為特殊，也最值得討論。牟先生曾先通過周文疲弊，指出中國哲學仍是以實踐為優先的事實，而後，再以實踐所呈現之境界，說明中國哲學之精神。以此為線索，牟先生乃判定儒道思想皆為一實踐之智慧，亦是一境界型態的形上學。此中，儒道之區分，可就以下數義加以說明： 1.儒學以道德為優先，而道家則以自由在為訴求。 2.儒學通過道德要求而有積極性之創造，而道家則以遮撥之方式，消極地去執而成就一種實現道理。 3.儒學之實有型態乃是就道德創造上說，也因而形成「綜貫綜講」的型態，有別於道家「縱貫橫講」之型態。除了以上數義之說明外、本文也討論了袁保新教授對牟先生老學詮釋之反省，並分別就主觀主義、主觀心境與道、道的規範義、境界型態與實有型態之關係等，加以說明袁教授之立場及其可能之發展。簡言之，牟先生其實已經自覺主觀主義之危險而加以避免，由於此時之聖人境界雖由主體成就，但不表示此主體所成就之境界就必然是主觀，而缺乏客觀、普遍之意義。因此，主觀心境誠然是道顯現之「場所」。然而也應同時是道之具體表現，道不必抽象為遠離生活世界之道自身。同時，由於聖人之修養以成境界，此中之價值義十分明確，因此，道也因價值義而具規範義。 Laotze's thoughts is the main basis as well as the formation of Taoism. We may say that seize Laotze, seize Taoism. Furthermore we can differerentiate Confucianism and Taoism correctly. Mr. Mou Tsung-san has the most special position and whose thoughts are worth discussing in contemporary Laotze Studies. Mr. Mou points out that Chinese philosophy gives priority to practice and after that, he describes its spirits by the state. By this clue, Mr. Mou ascertains that both Confucianism and Taoism are practical wisdom as well as state mode metaphysics we can differentiate between Confucianism and Taoism as follows. Firstly. Confucianism gives priority to morality, Taoism exists in pursuit of freedom. Secondly, Confucianism create itself positively through morality, Taoism achieves itself passively by the way of conceal. Thirdly, Confucianism forms a mode of "verticality, vertical discussion"; Taoism forms a mode of "verticality, transversc discussion". In addition, I'll discuss Professor Yuan, Pao-hsin's opinions about Mr. Mou's interpretation of Laotze. Briefly speaking, actually, Mr. Mou has already aware of the danger of subjectivism and try to avoid . Certainly , moral character in the "space" to appear, however, it should be the concrete expression of The Fundamental Truth. At the mean time, The Fundamental Truth has meaning of model by meaning of value.
Relation:	鵝湖學誌=Legein Society 29，頁1-26
DOI:	10.29653/LS.200212.0001
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute & Department of Chinese] Journal Article

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	140	View/Open
論牟宗三先生對老子形上思想之定位.pdf		6176Kb	Adobe PDF	1	View/Open

Loading...