不同的「超越性」與「內在性」：從社會學觀點論牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲在中西文化類型學論述上之差異

Abstract

本論文從社會學的角度切入晚近國際漢學和比較哲學場域的一個特殊討論：「超越性」和「內在性」的討論。其討論焦點乃是當代漢學和比較哲學大師牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方在「同樣」的問題上 (如何以西方的「超越性」觀念和「內在性」觀念建構「中西文化類型學論述」) ，得到「不同」的答案 (牟宗三得出「內在超越性」和「外在超越性」的中西文化類型學論述，而郝大維和安樂哲則得出「內在性」和「超越性」的中西文化類型學論述) 而產生的爭鋒相對局面。在此討論中，「第三代新儒家」以及其他論者，一般認為牟宗三是「對」的，而郝大維和安樂哲則是「錯」的，並以「現代」和「後現代」以及「非東方主義」和「東方主義」等帶有價值判斷的對立性標籤，來描述兩方的論述。 與「第三代新儒家」依據特定立場進行判斷的哲學研究進路不同，本論文首先希望從Bourdieu的哲學論述的社會學研究綱領出發，論證牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方的「中西文化類型學論述」，由於指涉不同的社會文化脈絡，並具有不同的預設，因而兩方的論述的社會文化意涵是「不可共量」的。由兩方論述的不可共量性之確立，本論文將進一步質問為何「第三代新儒家」會認為兩方論述是「可共量」的，並以「現代」和「後現代」以及「非東方主義」和「東方主義」等帶有價值判斷的對立性標籤來描述兩方的論述。 由牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方的中西文化類型學論述的特殊性質，本文權宜性地建構出，考察它們的不同社會文化意涵時不可不重視的三個環節：兩方對「超越性」觀念和「內在性」觀念的不同使用 (use) 、兩方的不同「中西文化類型學的基本型態」、兩方的不同「橋樑」。由此，在第二章和第三章，本文首先考察了兩方「中西文化類型學的基本型態」的歷史性質。進而，在第四章和第五章，本文將把牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方的論述生產 (整合上述三個環節) ，分別置入冷戰和國共內戰以及當代歐美社會的外在脈絡和內在脈絡中。最後，在結論的部分，本文將在兩方論述的「不可共量性」的基礎上，考察「第三代新儒家」為何在「超越性」和「內在性」的討論中如此評價兩方的論述。

This thesis engages sociologically a major debate in contemporary sinology and comparative philosophy, namely “the transcendence and immanence debate.” The focus of this debate is the controversy concerning the “different” cultural typologies constructed respectively by Mou Zongsan and David Hall / Roger Ames (Hall and Ames) , respectively, using apparently “identical” Western ideas of transcendence and immanence. The former characterizes Chinese culture as immanent transcendence and Western culture as outer transcendence, while the latter characterizes Chinese culture as immanence and Western culture as transcendence. In this debate, the “Third-Generation New Confucians” and others generally argue that Mou Zongsan is “right” while Hall and Ames are “wrong.” Further, the “Third-generation New Confucians” characterize the difference between Mou and Hall and Ames’ positions with value-laden dichotomies such as modern vs. postmodern and non-orientalist vs. orientalist. In contrast to the Third-Generation New Confucians’ value-laden and philosophical method, this thesis wishes firstly to prove the “incommensurability” between Mou and Hall and Ames’ cultural typologies, viewing them as discursive productions that correspond to different socio-cultural contexts through Pierre Bourdieu’s framework. After empirically proving the incommensurability between Mou and Hall and Ames’ typologies, this thesis will then inquire into the motive and context behind the Third-Generation New Confucians’ belief that Mou and Hall and Ames’ typologies are “commensurable,” and their characterizing these two typologies with the aforementioned value-laden dichotomies. Due to the special nature of Mou and Hall and Ames’ cultural typologies, this thesis has provisionally devised three methodological constructs that will aid the understanding of their different socio-cultural significance: uses concerning apparently “identical” ideas of transcendence and immanence, basic typological frameworks, and philosophical bridges. Following this methodological procedure, chapters two and three will inquire into the historicity of Mou and Hall and Ames’ basic typological frameworks. In chapters four and five, this essay will situate Mou and Hall and Ames’ discursive production (reconstructed with the aid of the three methodological constructs) in their respective contexts (the Cold War and the Communist-Nationalist struggle vs. contemporary Western society). After settling the “incommensurability” of these two cultural typologies, this thesis will lastly explore briefly the motive and context behind the Third-Generation New Confucians’ understanding Mou and Hall and Ames in the aforementioned manner.