牟宗三先生以"自律道德"的理论诠释儒学之蠡测

Mou Zongsan uses the highest moral principle “autonomy” to interpret Confucius’ benevolence and Mencius’ “inherent benevolence and righteousness”, focuses on the self-rule of the will. It does not do any harm to Mencius’ learning, on the contrary, it is conducive to the communication between Chinese and Western philosophies. If we stick to Kant’s moral self autonomy and apply it to interpreting Zhu Xi’s moral theory, similarly we will discover the implications of Zhu Xi’s “autonomy” in his moral learning. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Mou Zongsan to say that Zhu Xi’s ethics belongs to the autonomous one. __________ Translated from Zhexue Yanjiu 哲学研究 (Philosophical Researches), 2005, (6): 33–39     

未冠以存有论名称的存有论思想--牟宗三《心体与性体》存有论思想辨析

在写作《心体与性体》的时候,牟宗三的存有论思想已经基本成形。由于他此时仍不承认知性有其存有的意义,所以并没有将有关的思想直接冠以存有论的名称。深入研究这部著作中的有关思想,是全面理解牟宗三存有论思想的入门捷径。     

“良知坎陷”：牟宗三的思想脉络与理论开展

在牟宗三哲学发展中,"良知坎陷"说有认识论、历史文化论和存有论三义。"良知坎陷"说的理论开展,既表现为存有论意义上的理论综合,也体现在以"道德实践"对"坎陷"所作的理论规定。在"良知坎陷"说中,存在着文化诉求与哲学思考的思想纠结。由于对"坎陷"之辩证义的独特规定,牟宗三存有论意义的"良知坎陷"既不同于黑格尔绝对精神的辩证开展,也改造了康德现象与物自身超越区分的理论架构,展露出"彻底的唯心论"的基本意蕴,具有新的理论意义。     

Modernization of Confucian ontology in Taiwan and mainland China

The present paper compares three models of modernized Confucian Ontology. The philosophers under debate belong to the most important, well-known and influential theoreticians in modern Taiwan and mainland China respectively. Through a contrastive analysis, the paper aims to critically introduce three alternative models of ontology, which have been developed from the Chinese philosophical tradition by the most well-known Taiwanese philosopher Mou Zongsan and by two most influential mainland Chinese theoreticians, Li Zehou and Chen Lai respectively. In this paper, I will analyze and critically introduce Li Zehou’s and Chen Lai’s respective critiques of Mou Zongsan’s basic assumptions that have been reflected in his methodological paradigms, while also exposing some major differences within their own lines of thought.     

Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics

In this paper I investigate differences and similarities in the definitions of human being and human essence as proposed by two of the most influential thinkers of 20th-century world philosophy, namely Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger. I first examine a number of interpretations put forth by scholars that assess the philosophical compatibility of the thought of the two philosophers. Each of these assessments tend to agree that they are incompatible with each other based on what they perceive as an absolute distance between Mou’s and Heidegger’s ways of thinking. Although these studies are pioneering and show an in-depth understanding of Mou’s thought, none demonstrate a correct understanding of Heidegger’s philosophy. Therefore, I will attempt to demonstrate that, despite their differences, the ontological and ethical theses of Mou and Heidegger have several striking points of contact. I will also put forth the claim that Heidegger’s post-turn philosophy is more compatible with Mou’s philosophy than Kant’s system.     

牟宗三形著说质疑

本文依次从心体是否需要性体保证其客观性,性体能否保证心体的客观性,形著说能否达到预期目的,究竟应该如何看待天道等方面,向牟宗三著名的形著说提出质疑。本文总的结论是,形著说虽有重要的理论意义,但其路子从一开始就没有走对,不仅不能有效解决理论上的难题,而且有叠床架屋之嫌。     

Dwelling in the Nearness of Gods: The Hermeneutical Turn from M<Emphasis Type="SmallCaps">ou</Emphasis> Zongsan to T<Emphasis Type="SmallCaps">u</Emphasis> Weiming

This article argues that, as far as the problem of Confucian religiosity is concerned, there is an interpretative turn from Mou Zongsan’s moral metaphysics to Tu Weiming’s religious hermeneutics. Some concluding remarks are made: First, Tu’s hermeneutics is rooted in the ontology of self as interrelatedness, which is completely different from Mou’s theory of true self as transcendental subjectivity. Second, Tu’s hermeneutics of self can be better illuminated with the help of Heidegger’s notion of Dasein as Being-with (Mitsein). For Tu and Heidegger, self cannot be seen as something separate from community. This article also points out that the paradigmatic shift is evidenced in another similarity between the four categories of self, community, nature, and the transcendent in Tu’s hermeneutics on the one hand, and the four symbols of earth, sky, divinities, and mortals employed by Heidegger to interpret the meaning of dwelling, on the other. In such a primordial situation of dwelling, gods are not supposed to be intellectually known; they are rather to be neighbors in community.     

牟宗三"实践的智慧学"探求诠论

对哲学作为“实践的智慧学”的探求是牟宗三后期哲学思考的核心。这一探索,开启了牟宗三中国哲学与康德哲学双向诠释的基本视域,也拓出了道德形而上学体系建构的理论地平。“实践的智慧学”诠释具有独特的理论内涵,也隐含了牟氏道德形上学自我批判与超越的思想线索。     

成于乐的圆成之境——论牟宗三的美学世界及其与康德美学的不同

牟宗三虽然不以美学家名世,但是却有丰富的美学思想。牟宗三的前期美学思想,为其后来的美学思想奠立了基调,这是解开与把握其美学思想的关键。他的美学世界是以本体论的逻辑构造为基础而建立的宇宙论的逻辑构造。他以中国儒家式的天心为建立美的判断的最后的超越原则,以取代康德以“自然之目的性”概念为建立美的判断的最后的超越原则,从而重建康德的美学;相对于康德的美学乃至于西方主流的美学来说,的确是提出了一条新的美学思路即道德的形上学的审美之路,拓宽了美学的领域,开阔了研究美学的视野,对人是不乏启发的。牟宗三与康德各自处于不同的文化背景与哲学传统之中,其所成就的哲学或美学以不同的面貌、风格与类型现世,原属自然。问题在于,如何在中西哲学、美学,乃至文化之间找到一块双方都承认的共同所有的空白地带,作为通约的基础,并在这一基础上来展开中西哲学相互对话与相互融通的工作,既有世界性人类性,又不失其民族性与个性,才是我们所企盼的前景。     

Is Confucianism a religion? Modern Confucian theories on the ethical nature of classical discourses

When dealing with the study of diverse Confucian traditions in eastern Asia, we are often confronted by the issue of the religious dimension of Confucianism and how can it be compared to the Western (or ‘general’) connotations of the term. Proceeding from the basic question as to how Confucianism sees itself, the paper focuses on the approaches of two representatives of the Modern Confucian intellectual movement, namely Mou Zongsan and Xu Fuguan. In addition, we shall also take into consideration the various contemporary Confucian interpretations of the previously delineated problems, for instance Liu Shu-hsien’s or Chen Lai’s. Based on these discourses, the paper clarifies the reasons for Modern Confucian interpretations, according to which Confucianism is not a religion in the Western sense but a discourse that represents both a practical moral teaching and an abstract philosophy of immanent transcendence.