請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/20412
標題: | 近代中國學界對「儒」的論爭(1840-1949) The Intellectual Debates on “Ru” in Modern China (1840-1949) |
作者: | Kai-Hsuan Fu 傅凱瑄 |
指導教授: | 李隆獻 |
共同指導教授: | 鄭吉雄 |
關鍵字: | 康有為,章太炎,胡適,〈原儒〉,〈說儒〉,孔教, Kang Youwei,Zhang Taiyan,Hu Shi,“Yuan ru”,“Shuo ru”,Kong jiao, |
出版年 : | 2017 |
學位: | 博士 |
摘要: | 近代中國遭遇二千年來未有之大變局,學者反思傳統學術之得失,經由批評前人或時人對於「儒」的名義與起源之主張,以及重塑孔子形象,寄寓自身之政治、學術主張。本文以康有為、章太炎、胡適對「儒」的論述為切入點,經由分析文獻掌握作者的撰作動機及立論目的,並聯繫時人的相關討論,從而勾勒出近代學界「儒」論爭的開展。
康有為早年曾受章學誠影響,所撰《教學通義》大倡官師合一之論,與廖平會於羊城後,著《新學偽經考》、《孔子改制考》強烈批評劉歆之學,並反駁《周禮》、《七略》「諸子出於王官」之論。康有為將「儒」界定為孔子創教教名,以孔子為教主,凡從孔子之學者皆可稱為「儒」,又以《六經》皆為孔子託古改制,意在建設一可與西方基督教相抗之「儒教」、「孔教」,將「教」由「士大夫」之「教育」擴展為「庶民」之「教化」,所論極具顛覆性,引發學界爭論。為反駁康有為的主張,章太炎詆諆孔子貪慕富貴利祿,又主張孔子為良史,非教主。所著〈論諸子學〉將孔子學術區別為「經師」及「儒生」兩種面向,以反對「通經致用」之論。又於1909年發表〈原儒〉,析「儒」之名義為三,主張孔門因習六藝之事,承《周禮》「儒」名而稱儒,然其本質實為《周禮》之「師」。晚年亦據此一思路,主張「理學」應改稱「儒學」。胡適早年所作〈諸子不出於王官論〉點名批評章太炎。《中國哲學史大綱》上卷主張孔子創立三年之喪,後學偏重發揮「孝」與「禮」,進而出現「孝的宗教」。然於1934年發表〈說儒〉推翻舊說,改以孔子為殷商文化的繼承者,以三年之喪為殷制,主張老子、孔子本皆為殷遺民之教士階級,以相禮及教學為業。孔子反思傳統所帶來的限制,改革舊儒之柔懦,以「仁」的精神開創新儒行,宗教情懷近於耶穌;又宣告「吾從周」,破除狹隘封閉的部落性畛域,吸納粲然大備的周文化,此正孔子值得崇敬之處。至於傳統的經學則不必再保留,才能使中國充分世界化。 綜合本文所論,可知近代學界對「儒」論爭的背後,實有一致關懷,即是如何為儒學重構符合時代需求的新詮釋。而當日學者所提出的各種主張,迄今仍對於學界省思儒學之過去與未來有重要的影響,值得深入研究。 China has suffered unprecedented changes in modern times. This difficult situation made intellectuals reflected on the gains and losses of traditional academic. In order to express their own political and academic ideas, they differentiated previous opinions about the meaning and the origin of “ru”, and attempted reshape the image of Confucius. This thesis tries to take the discussion of “ru” by Kang Youwei, Zhang Taiyan and Hu Shi as the starting point, and then outlines the process of debate on “ru” in modern China by analyzing these text to explore the authors’ motives and arguments and comparing with the relevant discussion at that time. Kang Youwei was influenced by Zhang Xuecheng in his early years and enunciated “guanshi heyi” (officials and teachers are identical) in Jiaoxue tongyi. After meeting with Liao Ping in Guangzhou, he changed his mind. In Xinxue weijing kao and Kongzi gaizhi kao, Kang strongly criticized Liu Hsin’s idea that Pre-Qin schools originated from Western Zhou official learning. He defined “ru” as the the religion established by Confucius, Confucius as a hierarch, and the Six Classics as Confucius’ blueprint for restructuring the governance. His argument was highly subversive and had sparked academic debate. To oppose Kang’s statements, Zhang Taiyan severely slandered Confucius for seeking fame and fortune. He advocated that Confucius was a great historian instead of a hierarch. In “Lun zhuzi xue”, he divided Confucius’ academic discourse into “jingshi” (teachers of Confucian classics) and “rushing” (Confucian scholars) against the theory of “tongjing zhiyong” (to comprehend the classics and put the teaching into practical affairs). He then distinguished three interpretations of “ru” in “Yuan ru” and maintained that Confucius and his students were called “ru” for they learned the Six Arts that were taught by the official “ru” in Rites of Zhou Dynasty. In his later years, Zhang argued that “Neo Confucianism” should be renamed “Confucianism”. Hu Shih opposed Zhang Taiyan’s view in “Zhuzi buchuyu wangguan lun”. In Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang, he advocated Confucius founded three years of mourning which transformed into “religion of filial piety” after the death of Confucius. In “Sho ru” published in 1934, he regarded Confucius as the successor of the Shang people and three years of mourning was the rituals of the Shang. Laozi and Confucius were the priests of the Shang survivors, and they both made a living from teaching and helping others to perform rituals. Confucius reflected on the limitations of tradition and innovated the new code of conduct in the spirit of “ren”. His love for all mankind was the same with Jesus. Confucius is respected for his declaration that he would follow Zhou to broke the narrow tribal boundaries and absorb the glorious Western Zhou culture. Hu believed that the traditional Confucian classics need not be preserved so that China could become wholehearted modernization. Based on this thesis, we can see that how to reconstruct the new interpretation of Confucianism in line with the needs of the times is a unanimous concern for the debate of “ru” in modern academic circles. The various propositions put forward by scholars in modern China still have a great impact on the study of Confucianism today and deserve further study. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/20412 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU201702758 |
全文授權: | 未授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 中國文學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 8.66 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。