(357)
|
| 由「經子平等」而「婢作夫人」——近代學術觀的變遷與子學身份的重構 |
| Reconstruction and Identity of Zixue in the Transformation of Modern Xueshu (Learning) |
 |
| 作者 |
許朝陽 |
| Author |
Chao-Yang Hsu |
| 關鍵詞 |
子學、
哲學、
思想、
學術、
學術史、
哲學史
|
| Keywords |
Zixue,
philosophy,
thought,
Xueshu (learning),
history of learing,
history of philosophy
|
| 摘要 |
在漢代以獨尊儒術為學術方針之後，先秦諸子之學可說即漸趨衰微，此衰微之勢要直到晚清乃有復興之跡。晚明以降，基於對理學反動，老莊之學成為士大夫批判儒學的利器；乾嘉年間，考據之學大盛，士人考證對象更由經學擴及於子書。於子學復興的過程中，伴隨著社會問題與西學傳入雙種因素，子學也由傳統考據轉向為具近代性意義的研究方法，亦即透過西學觀念以闡發子學。
察考傳統文獻中「學術」概念的指涉對象，主要為經學儒術，但也廣義地含括漢學宋學、道學理學等範疇。換言之，「學術」的傳統用法本即橫跨經學史、思想史甚至哲學史課題。儘管如此，依傳統學術觀，子學乃經學附庸，所謂學術仍有一定的指導標準，內容並非無所取捨、態度也非平等對待。然而清末學術觀念漸趨改變，經、子各學科地位頗有平等之趨勢。依此學術觀所撰述而成之學術史作，遂漸跳脫昔日經學框架，態度上經子平等，內容上天文曆算、音韻訓詁以至思想皆含括其中。經子平等後，子學乃能於近代學術史論述中建立其學術地位。
然而，近代學者對「學術」指涉頗不一致，或於天文曆算、音韻訓詁、方志地理乃至思想等無所不包，或於思想較為偏重者。準此，學術史亦有兩種表現，一是以歷史文獻考據與思想內容並重，並期以歷史考據進一步達到思想的解析；另一則以思想研究為重。如以學術的實質內容為思想者，則學術史與思想史相重疊的現象便有合理的解釋。然而，思想研究必有觀察角度，如政治思想、哲學思想；取捨不同，思想遂有高下之分。特別在哲學角度下，子學成為中國哲學的源頭，子學基源問題亦由救時之弊轉變為本體論、宇宙論、人性論；如是，子學原於「經子平等」的立場而於近代取得其學術地位，又於哲學角度下一轉成為學術起點、哲學源頭，乃至於胡適所謂「婢作夫人」的局面，這對於漢代以來經學為學術源頭或諸子出於王官之學的說法，無疑都是一種挑戰。比對學術史與哲學史中的子學論述，並以基源問題的轉變、哲學問題的設定為主要考察對象，或可說明子學轉型為哲學的漸進過程，及其所面臨的學科異化的問題。 |
| Abstract |
The concept of “Xueshu” mainly refers to Jinxue (study of the classics) and Confucianism, but also widely to Hanxue, Songxue study , Daoxue and Lixue study included. In other words, Xueshu traditionally ranges from the history of classics to the history of thoughts and even the history of philosophy. However, according to the traditional conception, Zixue is subordinate to Jinxue. The so-called Xueshu doesn’t mean that all knowledge is equally treated. With the gradual change of concept of “Xueshu” in Qing dynasty, Jinxue and Zixue seem to be equalized. Only with this, will Zixue rebuild its academic status in the history of modern science.
With a range from calendar, phonics, geography to thoughts, the definition of Xueshu by modern scholars differs quite a lot. Consequently, the history of learning can be divided into two ways: one puts emphasis on both textual research and thoughts, and the others emphasizes on thoughts. If we consider thought as the content of Xueshu, then the duplication of the history of learning and the history of thought will be reasonable. However, the thought must be researched from a certain angle, such as politics and philosophy. Especially from the angle of philosophy, the fundamental problems are transferred from the political corruption at that time to ontology, cosmology, and human nature. Thus, Zixue becomes the origin of learning and philosophy. Compared with the classics or government position, the theory will be anyway a great challenge. |
|
|
|
