「予豈好『譬』哉？」：孟子與譬喻

Abstract

本文命名為「予豈好『譬』哉？」結合著本文檢討的研究問題與研究方法，亦即本文試圖重新檢驗「孟子為何如此地『好辯』？」，並且經由譬喻分析來回答這個問題。答案為：孟子所批評的對象違反了道義，而道義的實質內容以及判斷標準顯示於孟子的譬喻中。本文首先做文獻回顧、譬喻定位與概念澄清三方面的鋪陳，以便於突顯過往哲學研究對於譬喻研究的遺漏、釐清思想過程本身就為譬喻性以及陳述與孟子人性論相關概念該如何解釋。接著，本文選出孟子對於人性論最關鍵的五段論述，從得出的譬喻描述中建構孟子人性論的五大特色：（1）猶有四體，人有四端 ；（2）芻豢悅口，理義悅心 ；（3）猶水就下，人性之善 ；（4）山養則長，性養則長 ；（5）舍魚取掌，舍生取義 。再者，由於孟子的人性論必須要展現於人倫關係中，本文便指出「五倫」背後的關鍵譬喻。特別重要的譬喻包括國君應該「為民父母」、臣下應該「營造環境」、士人應該「居仁由義」。基於以上分析，本文最後突顯濫用自己權力的國君、逢迎國君過錯的臣下與誤導百姓言行的士人，為孟子批評最嚴重的三個對象。以上分析試圖從新的角度顯示孟子思想的價值與特色所在，證明孟子之「好辯」並非不合理，反而有系統性和充分的根據。

This paper’s title—“Am I Really Old Fart?”—combines both research question and methodology. In other words, this paper attempts to answer anew “Why was Mencius so argumentative?” by analyzing his metaphors. The answer is: those Mencius criticized violated morality, and the actual content of and standards for morality are displayed in Mencius’ metaphors. This paper, first of all, establishes three points of groundwork in reviewing the literature, establishing the role of metaphors, and clarifying concepts, in order to highlight research gaps in past philosophical metaphorical research, illuminate the metaphorical character of thought, and explaining crucial concepts related to Mencius’ theory of human nature. Then, this paper selects the five most critical passages related to Mencius’ theory of human nature and reconstructs its five characteristic features: 1) “like they have four limbs, people have four sprouts”; 2) “as meat satisfies the mouth, so morality satisfies the heart”; 3) “as water flows downward, so human nature is oriented towards good”; 4) “nourishing the mountain enables growth, nourishing human nature enables growth”; 5) “abandon fish for bear’s paw, abandon life for morality.” Next, as Mencius’ theory of human nature must be demonstrated in human relationships, thus this paper points out the essential metaphors behind Mencius’ “five relationships.” Especially important metaphors include that rulers should “act as parent to the people,” ministers should “create an environment,” and teachers should “dwell in benevolence and walk in righteousness.” Based on this analysis, this paper lastly highlights power-abusing rulers, ruler-enabling ministers, and people-misleading teachers as the three subjects of Mencius’ most vehement criticism. The preceding analysis attempts to highlight the value and characteristics of Mencian thought, showing that Mencius’ “argumentativeness” is not unreasonable, but is rather systematic and well-grounded.