| Abstract: | 本論文藉由當代詮釋系統的比論與對蕺山文本的分析，重新衡定蕺山心性學的義理型態。本論文認為，蕺山學說的重要處，未必在於發展了不同於心學一系的思想學說。雖然他賦予「心」、「性」、「理」、「氣」、「天」等概念另一種詮釋的方式，但仍然是心學內的救正。然而，蕺山在概念的言說中，由於文字語意的描述上有所纏繞，故使後人詮釋產生了矛盾的衝突。本章節分為五章，除了緒論與結論之外，各章節所要處理的問題如下：
第二章：比論當代研究的詮釋系統，對於蕺山思想各有所側重，然而也皆有不能相應蕺山文本之處。最主要的衝突面向歸結於：其一，強調蕺山性體的客觀超越義。其二，取消了蕺山性體的客觀超越義。本論文將嘗試梳理此一詮釋上的衝突，提出融貫理解蕺山思想的論述。
第三章：蕺山有意藉著與前人學說牴觸的方式來反顯問題，並且以此立論。通過蕺山與陽明、朱子兩套不同學說的對話與辯駁，本章得出蕺山學說的基本宗旨：一、對治陽明後學的空談本體，蕺山消融天道的「客觀實體義」下拉世間而有所著落。依照蕺山的思路，道體是世間萬有形上即於形下的整全狀態。道體就是萬物本身陰陽二氣生化流行不已的創生。天地間一氣流行自然地收斂發散，一氣流行就是性理流行。二、他進一步指出，心之理則性的貞定，才是一氣流行的保證。此是蕺山分言「心宗」、「性宗」的原因。若不能通過人心的開顯、證成，則一氣流行，只是一自然而然。惟有通過心之理則性的證顯，方能證出人的生機自然就是天地萬物的本然理則。三、對反於朱子「理先氣後」的看法，蕺山「即氣言性」。性理必在氣的流行活動中而顯，氣就是性理的分殊發散。
第四章：順著上一章進路，本論文認為對於蕺山文本中欲消融性體的超越義、與對「性天之奧」的堅守，兩種看似矛盾的面向，能夠有一融通的詮釋與理解。本章直接就蕺山文本「心」、「性」、「理」、「氣」、「天」等概念做重新的建立。
Liu Jishan interprets the long discussed ideas, such as mind, nature, principle, material force, and heaven, in a way different from those of earlier scholars. The ambiguity in his expression, however, brought about contradiction to later interpretations. The present study aims to answer the following question: Are Liu’s new interpretations of the ideas form a coherent unity that they serve to rectify and remedy the drawbacks of the late Ming Confucian school of Mind? Or, are they, on the contrary, inevitably the cause of the conflicts among later understandings on Liu’s concepts? By comparing the contemporary interpretations on Liu’s concepts and analyzing Liu’s philosophical texts, the present thesis attempts to resolve the seeming contradictions in Liu’s texts, and re-evaluate and better systematize his theory of Mind and Nature. As this thesis demonstrates, Liu interprets the ideas of mind, nature, principle, material force, and heaven in a new way not so much to develop a theory deviant from the school of Mind, but rather to fix and remedy the problems in the school of Mind.
The thesis at first compares and evaluates contemporary scholars’ different, even contradictory interpretations on Liu’s concept. I indicate that the major difference in their interpretations lies in whether there the idea of “principle” is transcendental in Liu’s concept. The following chapter, through analyzing Liu’s dialogue with and critique on Wang Yangming and Zhu Xi’s philosophy, tries to illustrate Liu’s core concept. I demonstrate that Liu, to rectify the vain argument made by Wang Yangming’s followers, views the nature of the metaphysical reality as the generation of the physical world through the flow and exchange of yin and yang. He further explains, the truth that the way human beings’ exist is actually the principle of the physical reality of the cosmos can be manifested only in the practice of morality in mind. And to counter Zhu Xi’s notion about “principle as the primal basis that precedes material force” (理先氣後), Liu argues that the metaphysical reality must be manifested in the flow and movement of material force. In light of this understanding, the last chapter, through revisiting Liu’s interpretations on the ideas of mind, nature, principle, material force, and heaven, attempts to reconcile the two seeming contradictory ideas in Liu’s text— his inclination toward denying the transcendental meaning of the metaphysical reality, and his insistence on the profoundity of nature and heaven. |
