本文旨在從古典儒家的觀點思考Giovanni Scarafile教授提出的「未聞之痛」（Unheardalgia）及他用以克服或治癒此一痛苦的「對話倫理學」（dialogethics）。本文首先回顧Scarafile教授論文的要旨，並聚焦於他關於「未聞之痛」以及經受「未聞之痛」而讓人成為「築防之人」（Homo muniens）和「承痛之人」（Homo patiens）兩種存在樣態的討論，接著指出可能隱含在其思路背後的基督宗教信仰元素，由此而論及基督宗教和儒家傳統裡人對終極真實的回應方式的差異，冀能藉此尋繹來自東方之回應「未聞之痛」的可能取徑。限於回應篇幅，本文僅從古典儒家尋求思想資源，並根據儒家之仁的涵義，提出「同情共感之人」（Homo communicans）、「惻隱之人」（Homo compatiens）、「近鄰之人」（Homo proximus）等存在樣態，供Scarafile教授作為他未來深入發展其論點時的參考。

This article aims to reflect, from the perspective of classical Confucianism, on Professor Giovanni Scarafile’s concept of Unheardalgia and the dialogethics he proposes as a way to overcome or heal this suffering. It begins by reviewing the main arguments of Scarafile’s “Unheardalgia and dialogethics: Toward a phenomenology of failed listening and an ethics of situated dialogue”, with a focus on his discussion of unheardalgia and of the two existential models that emerge in response to enduring such pain: Homo muniens and Homo patiens. The article then points to possible Christian elements implicit in the background of his line of thought and, on this basis, considers the differences between Christianity and the Confucian tradition in their respective ways of human responding to Ultimate Reality. Through this comparison, it seeks to explore an alternative Eastern approach to responding to unheardalgia. Given the limits of space, this article confines itself to classical Confucian resources. Drawing on the Confucian understanding of Ren (humaneness, humanity or benevolence), it proposes additional existential models — Homo communicans (the person-in-communion), Homo compatiens (the compassionate person), and Homo proximus (the neighboring or near-to-others person) — as possible references for Professor Scarafile in the further development of his argument.