王龙溪“见在良知”说再析

"见在良知"是王龙溪承袭并发展自阳明而来的良知观的独特表述形式,其义涵在于指示良知的当下缘构和自然流行。因为这一提法与"现成良知"有相当程度上的内涵重合,所以与龙溪同时及之后的学者往往站在"现成"的角度上对"见在良知"说进行批判。本文试图在良知的当下缘构与自然流行意义上予"见在良知"的内涵解释以新的角度,并藉以反观龙溪良知说的本体面相与工夫路径。     

王阳明良知说的道德动力问题

王阳明的良知说历来被认为具有道德动力义,但本文认为王阳明思想中该问题具有复杂性。王阳明本人并未对道德动力之重要性有明确认识,所以要进行探讨,在很大程度上只能做间接探讨与推论。通过对"知者意之体"的分析,可知良知可以作为本体而发用,由此推导出道德动力与情感也可作为"用"而源于良知。但仔细审视王阳明对于孟子四端之心的看法,就会看到他完全是从根源以及究极的意义理解四端之心。又由于王阳明倾向于以"知是知非"来统摄理解四端,导致"恻隐之心"等道德感情更多地被理解为"知恻隐"。这两点理解其实与朱熹并没有本质差异。     

从王畿看良知说的演变

王阳明的良知说既确立了其在理学史上的重要地位,又宣告了理学已开始解体,而理学解体的帷幕是由他的大弟子王畿正式揭开的。一王畿曾经说:“师门致良知三字,人孰不闻?惟我信得及。”(《遗言付应斌应吉记》,《王龙溪先生全集》卷十五。以下简称《全集》)意思是,在王门弟子中,只有他才真正领会了良知说     

李二曲“良知”说义涵及其逻辑展开

作为关中理学大家,李二曲服膺阳明心学之旨,其本体-工夫-境界系统立基于"良知"学说。从本体层面二曲强调"良知"的先验性,提出"良知"即"良心"。二曲通过对"良知"与"闻见之知"进行区别,认为"闻见之知"无益于德行的涵养,强调通过"致良知"的工夫达到"心与万物一体"的"至善"境界,这也是二曲"良知"说的逻辑展开。二曲的"良知"说承袭、调和了"陆王心学"与"程朱理学"的学理论争,批判了"王学末流""略工夫谈本体"、"程朱末流""做工夫而昧本体"的弊端,这种批判也是对中晚明以来学术、学风的一次总结。     

论王阳明的良知说对佛理的融会

关于王阳明的良知说与佛教的因缘 ,国内外或是认为阳明对佛教的融通主要是对禅宗的融通 ,如侯外庐先生等主编的《宋明理学史》、日本久须本文雄先生撰述的《王阳明の禅的思想研究》 ;或是像曾其海先生的《天台佛学》一书所言 :天台宗对阳明良知说的影响是“决定性的、本质的”① 。我们以为自唐宗密首倡教禅会通 ,宋元以降 ,禅教合流已是大势所趋 ,而阳明的良知说所韫的佛理也正是这种会通的产物。换言之 ,阳明良知说中所韫的佛理不是单纯的禅宗或天台宗抑或华严学所能涵盖的 ,它们是阳明会通禅教的结果。如阳明的良知本体论就是天台宗、华…     

论王阳明的立诚说

立诚说是王阳明继知行合一后提出的又一重要心学理论。王阳明倡导立诚说,旨在对治虚伪的世风,并用诚意统率格物以克服程朱格物致知说所造成的流弊。其立诚说包括诚和立诚二方面内容:诚是天理,涵物理和伦理,它是心之本然状;立诚除了立定良知之善恶判定,从善去恶外,还有诚意、慎独、戒惧义。发明致良知后,王阳明的立诚说有新发展,一是申明诚是万物的存在依据,二是立诚说由之前的偏重内圣工夫转向关注道德践履,主张知行合一。王阳明终究没让立诚说而是奉致良知说为学术宗旨,立诚说终被致良知说所含纳,这是因为:立诚说须以良知及其发用作为其终极根据;致良知说是对立诚说的传承和发展,且比立诚说博大和精致。     

牟宗三"良知坎陷说"的发展历程

牟宗三的"良知自我坎陷说"贯穿了其学术思想发展的始终,大致经历了以下四个阶段:一、"内圣"坎陷"外王";二、"存在之理"坎陷"形构之理";三、"仁心觉情"收敛"智相";四、"无执的存有论"坎陷"执的存有论".从以上的发展线索来看,牟宗三的"良知坎陷说"具有一个逐步内在化、形上化的发展趋势,而其中"存在之理"坎陷"形构之理"这一阶段具有关键的意义.     

王阳明良知审美与现代审美

王阳明的心学以"心"为本体,核心是良知,他的心学美学是良知体验美学,"良知说"是王阳明学术的命脉。王阳明之"心学"以个体人格修养程度为准则来评价外物事物的美与否,其理论是以伦理评价为中心的人生论美学,立足于个体心性修养。在当前纷繁复杂的现代审美语境下,这种以良知为核心的审美对当代审美精神的建构也具有一定的借鉴意义。     

王阳明贵州龙场再悟良知之道

明代残酷的政治生态与政治压迫是王阳明龙场悟道出"良知"的政治历史背景。他的"良知"说是对孟子、理学和佛学的传承和发展。"吾性自足"是其"良知"的主要内容。长期坚持的执着精神是王阳明龙场悟出"良知"之道的主要方法。王阳明的"良知"说彰显了人的主体价值,具有民间性、世俗性、普遍性和社会性,代表了儒学发展的新方向,在儒学发展史上具有重要的意义。     

王阳明仁说的博爱理念

由《礼记·礼运》而来的一家一人观念,在宋明时期被给予了广泛的讨论。气性之和合导出了博爱的"大家"说,而大人"以天地万物为一体"则成为王阳明仁说的中心课题。"心体之同然"与"一体之仁"相结合,并随着良知发用而呈现。博爱是有边际的,爱善是博爱的内容限定。生物之心意义上的天下一心,可以辅助发明心本论哲学的以心为本和社会人伦意义上的同心同爱。"致良知"为博爱的实现提供了最重要的心理动因,而且直接担负起了践行博爱的道德责任。生民的困苦通过"一体之仁"的心理架构而转移到我的身上,不忍人之心已转换成义不容辞的救济职责。博爱的施行并不拒绝回报,互惠是施行博爱的理想结果。     

王、霸的时序性--试析由王道向霸道转变的原因

王道政治作为一种理想化的为政方式,由于其独特的伦理政治一体化的体系,在道德观念上占有先人为主的优越性。但是到了春秋战国时期,王道政治由于自身体系内部的矛盾,即人性善的理论与人性的本质的矛盾、理想化的为政理念可望而不可及、过于内倾的文化导致的软弱性,使王道政治已经很难适应拨乱反正的需要;霸道正好克治了王道的不足,是对王道的批判继承。     

Johnson and the Soundness Doctrine

Why informal logic? Informal logic is a group of proposals meant to contrast with, replace, and reject formal logic, at least for the analysis and evaluation of everyday arguments. Why reject formal logic? Formal logic is criticized and claimed to be inadequate because of its commitment to the soundness doctrine. In this paper I will examine and try to respond to some of these criticisms. It is not my aim to examine every argument ever given against formal logic; I am limiting myself to those that, as a matter of historical fact, were instrumental in the replacement of formal logic by informal logic and initially established informal logic as a separate discipline (in particular, Toulmin’s attacks on what he calls the “analytic ideal” will not form part of the discussion and were not instrumental in this way, only becoming appreciated later). If the criticism of the soundness doctrine is defective, then the move from formal logic to informal logic was not theoretically well-motivated. It is this motivation that I wish to bring into question, rather than the adequacy or inadequacy of formal or informal logic as such. While I will tend to the view that formal logic is as adequate as it is reasonable to expect, the real issue is whether it is inadequate for the reasons that, as a matter of historical fact, were used to motivate its rejection.     

On the Doctrine of Justification

The doctrine of the justification of the ungodly is central to the Christian confession. Justification is to be understood through the four Reformation exclusive particles: Christ alone, grace alone, word alone and faith alone. Justification addresses the relationlessness which is produced by sin as limitless self-realization. Related in himself as Trinity, God in Christ and Spirit continues in relation to the godless, thereby establishing a wealth of relation which is righteous. This account of justification is illuminating both for fundamental issues in anthropology and ethics, and for current ecumenical controversies concerning salvation, sacraments and ministry.     

佛教义理与因明逻辑

佛学与因明的关系问题是学术界尚未涉足又不可回避的重要课题。本文通过对三法印说与因明量论、三自性说与因三相、缘起说与三支论式等这些主要方面的比较分析，认为佛学对因明有着极为深刻的影响，彼此间诸多的相息相通之处是不可置疑的；以此阐明佛学与因明之间存在着相当密切的内在因缘关系。不过，佛学与因明在一些关键之点上有其根本区别，表明佛学本身固有的浓郁的宗教伦理体系色彩，而因明在本质上是一个不断趋向合理性、科学性、有效性的逻辑体系。     

Affirmative Action and the Doctrine of Double Effect

ABSTRACT  This article attempts to show that affirmative action can be supported by the doctrine of double effect which recognises distinctions between desired and unintended effects such that the responsibility for acts falls on the side of the former rather than the latter. With this doctrine it may also be seen why affirmative action programmes cannot be simply equated with numerical quota systems, nor can they be called discriminatory, at least not under the definition of discrimination utilised.     

Regress and the Doctrine of Epistemic Original Sin

Existing solutions to the epistemic regress problem, and the theories of justification built upon them, are inadequate, for they fail to diagnose the root source of the problem. The problem is rooted in our attachment to a pernicious dogma of modern epistemology: the idea that a judgement must be supported by some kind of reason or evidence to be justified. The epistemic analogue of the doctrine of original sin, this idea renders every judgement in need of redemption – guilty until shown to be innocent – distorting our understanding of reason at a very deep level, and preventing us from conceptualizing a satisfactory solution to the problem. If we opt for a more context–sensitive mechanism for assigning default epistemic status, however, we get a more plausible picture of justification, an epistemology more in tune with epistemic practice, and an elegant solution to the regress problem.