應對論爭的兩種方法--《莊子》的「兩行」與「巵言」

Abstract

本文以應對論爭的兩種方法為主題，探討《莊子》的「兩行」與「巵言」。本文的討論分為三個部分：第一、反思存有上的解釋，而從認知的切入點詮釋《莊子》的天人關係，提出天人兩種不同的認知方式。「天」的認知方式不區別事物，而「人」的認知方式則注視事物的差別。就《莊子》而言，兩者的平等是理想的狀態。然而偏重「人」的認知方式就會失去平衡，這就是產生論爭的起源。為了應對論爭，《莊子》發展「天」的認知方式的理論而試圖挽回天人的平衡。 第二、論爭既然為理想狀態的失衡，接著進一步分析論爭的原因和特色以及說明〈齊物論〉對說話者立場的看法。爭辯者過度使用「人」的認知方式，固執自己立場和對方立場之差別。因此論爭會有自是彼非的特色。為了避免陷入這種論爭，〈齊物論〉提出兩種情況：一種是面對爭辯者時，需要避免被牽扯進論爭的情況，另一種是面對雙方的論爭，需要解決此一論爭的情況。無論哪一種方法，〈齊物論〉把消除對自己立場的固執當作基礎。消除自己的立場之後，面對第一種情況，〈齊物論〉提出「兩行」的方法：若是對方肯定，自己也就肯定；若是對方否定，自己也就否定。隨者對方的意見能夠接受肯定、否定兩個選項，這就是避免論爭的方法。 第三、面對第二種情況，使用「巵言」來解決論爭。為了解釋「巵言」的意思，首先從〈寓言〉中「天倪」、「曼衍」以及「巵」的字義分析出相關的意象；接著基於此意象並且參考相關研究，指出「巵言」的否認、悖論、反諷三種語言形式。其中，悖論的研究值得進一步發展。因此藉由蒯因(Quine)的三種分類，指出「巵言」是一種悖論的形式，尋找《莊子》中的實際用例並且考察其功用。 最後結論：《莊子》應對論爭的方法雖因情況而有兩種反應，但基礎在於解消立場之別，並也準確地掌握爭辯者的不同立場。同時能做到立場的解消與立場的分別，這就是天、人的認知方式處於平等的狀態，這也正是《莊子》之理想。

This article deals with Zhuangzi’s “proceeding along both sides” (liangxing) and “goblet words” (zhiyan), assuming them to be two ways of responding to disputation. I argue that these two ways are used in different situation, but both are based on the same attitude towards disputation. Characterized by flexibility of one’s standpoint and adaptability to immediate disputation, the two ways of responding to disputation reflect Zhuangzi’s ideal of cognitive balance. This article consists of three sections. At the beginning, I suggest two modes of cognition which are explained from an epistemological interpretation of the relation between heaven and human, instead of an ontological interpretation. The balance between these two cognitive modes is regarded as an ideal of Zhuangzi, and the balance inclining toward human cognitive mode is the birth of disputation. The second section analyses the cause and features of disputation according to “Qiwulun,” and discusses “proceeding along both sides” (liangxing), one of the two ways of responding to disputation which enables its user to eschew being involved in disputation. Because “Qiwulun” expresses the idea that persisting in one’s own standpoint causes disputes, the user of liangxing avoids this by abandoning his own fixed standpoint and adapting to that of the opponent(s). The third section discusses “goblet words” (zhiyan), the second way of responding to disputation which resolves a conflict between the disputers. I illustrate an image of “goblet words” and relate it to relevant research on it. Antinomy is one of the modes of discourse of “goblet words,” which is clarified by examples from Zhuangzi at the end of this article. “Goblet words” removes the disputer’s persistence to their own standpoint and adjusts them in the direction of resolving the dispute.