《孟子》、《莊子》人性論比較探析

Abstract

孟莊人性論之比較最終得出的結論經常不是「對立」就是「會通」。然而，不同研究者所進行的比較似乎都在不同層次，阻礙將不同的判斷融會貫通。本文試圖針對這個現象，提供一個方法的梳理，主張一個四個步驟的分類法（taxonomy），藉此澄清孟莊人性論可以從「概念對準」、「理論對稱」、「問答對立」與「精要對齊」四個解析度層次比較。概念對準受到傅佩榮「澄清概念」研究法的啓發，試圖對準孟莊人性論中的基石概念。理論對稱受到傅偉勳「五謂創造性詮釋學」研究法的啓發，試圖對稱孟莊人性論中的基礎理論。問答對立受到勞思光「基源問題」研究法的啓發，試圖對立孟莊人性論中的基源問答。精要對齊受到李賢中「思想單位」研究法的啓發，試圖對齊孟莊人性論中的基本精要。 在提出這個方法的同時，本文也進一步使用該方法比較孟莊人性論，每一章個別澄清孟莊人性論的不同方面。「概念對準」將人性的基石概念分類爲「人性的内涵」，其中探討孟莊的「心」、「欲」和「志」；「人性的發揮」，其中探討孟莊的「仁」與「義」；與「人性的目的」，其中探討孟子的「天」和莊子的「道」。孟子認爲人有「適當的欲望」，並澄清「適當」擁有「適時」（符合時機）、「適度」（符合程度）與「適量」（符合分量）三個標準。莊子則認爲人有「自然的欲求」，並澄清「自然」擁有「自由」（沒有外在限制）、「自在」（沒有競爭念頭）與「自足」（沒有任何不滿）三個徵兆。 「理論對稱」分別回顧孟子與莊子人性論建構中的關鍵議題，各自回顧四個議題之後，並聚焦於近年學者對孟莊人性理論的共識：孟子與莊子都肯定人活在關係網絡中。自然延伸的問題是人到底身處於幾個關鍵的關係之中？不同學者提出不同的解釋，因此該分析轉向於《孟子》與《莊子》的文本。初步的分析從《孟子》與《莊子》文本中各找出一個代表性段落，其中分別看見孟莊肯定四個可以區別的關鍵關係，而進一步的分析則顯示這些關係出現於其他的重要敘述中。這四個關係分別是「與超越界」、「與人類界」、「與自然界」和「與内在界」的關係。孟子認爲人活在「天人物我」的關係網絡中，並能借用傅佩榮的「對神明要敬、對別人要恕、對物質要儉、對自己要約」總結孟子對於四個關係的態度。莊子則認爲人活在「道人物我」的關係網絡中，並能借用傅佩榮的「與大道要游、與別人要化、與自然要樂、與自己要安」總結莊子對於四個關係的態度。 「問答對立」回顧四個代表性的孟莊人性論之比較研究，在回顧的同時進行初步的驗證，展現這四個研究多少展現出「概念對準」、「理論對稱」、「問答對立」或「精要對齊」的特色，佐證該方法爲一個分類法的可能性。在回顧過往研究的同時，本章也試圖從孟莊人性論比較研究中找出基源問題的線索，分別詢問何謂人的「原樣」、「問題」、「解方」與「理想」。這四個問題形成一個故事，可稱作爲「人類的故事」，是人類共同的修養途徑。針對這四個問題，孟莊各自提出答案。從「心」的角度而言，孟子的修養過程有「存心」、「放心」、「求心」與「盡心」四個步驟，而莊子的修養過程則有「事心」、「成心」、「心齋」與「鏡心」四個步驟。從「仁義」的角度而言，孟子的修養過程有「由仁義行」、「充塞仁義」、「擴充仁義」與「居仁由義」四個步驟，而莊子的修養過程則有「仁義次之」、「彊以仁義」、「攘棄仁義」與「假道於仁，託宿於義」四個步驟。 「精要對齊」分別有「對内」與「對外」兩種比較。「對内」的精要對齊指的是在中國哲學自己的傳統中進行比較，並顯示「線上哲學百科全書」與「譯者序」中的思想精要確實能夠按照以上所提倡的方法步驟分類其比較的層次。「對外」的精要對齊則嘗試跨出中國哲學的傳統，用以上的方法與基督教人性論進行比較。依照「概念對準」，基督教主張人本身就是一個「欲求的存有」（nephesh），因此皆有「自然欲求」與「適當欲望」。依照「理論對稱」，基督教主張人活在「神人物我」的關係網絡中，並能用「向上帝要合」、「向別人要愛」、「向萬物要治」和「向自己要謙」總結基督教對於四個關係的態度。依照「問答對立」，基督教的修養過程有「順心」、「硬心」、「新心」與「一心」四個步驟。以上比較顯示本文的人性論分析方法有助建構一個跨傳統的人性論架構，同時能梳理不同傳統的重要共識與關鍵差異。

Comparisons of Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature often conclude they either “contradict” or “converge.” However, the comparisons made by different studies appear to be at different levels, preventing easy integration of different judgments. This article attempts to provide a methodological analysis of this problem, advocating a four-step taxonomy to clarify that Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature can be compared at four levels of resolution: “conceptual correlation,” “theoretical correspondence,” “question-answer contrast,” and “essential comparison.” Conceptual correlation was inspired by Fu Pei-Jung’s method of “clarifying concepts” and attempts to correlate the cornerstone concepts in Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature. Theoretical correspondence was inspired by Charles Wei-Hsun Fu’s “five stages of creative hermeneutics” and attempts to correspond the cardinal theories in Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature. Question-answer contrast was inspired by Sze-Kwang Lao’s “fundamental question” method and attempts to contrast the central questions and answers in Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature. Essential comparison is inspired by Hsien-Chung Lee’s “thought unit” method and attempts to compare the chief essences of Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature. While proposing this method, this paper also uses this method to compare Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature, and each chapter clarifies different aspects of their respective theories. “Conceptual correlation” categorizes the cornerstone concepts of human nature into “the content of human nature,” which explores Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s “heart,” “desire,” and “will”; “the development of human nature,” which explores Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s “benevolence” and “righteousness”; and “the purpose of human nature,” which explores Mengzi’s “Heaven” and Zhuangzi’s “Dao.” Mengzi believed that people have “appropriate desires” and clarified that “appropriate” ought to meet three standards: “appropriate time” (in line with time), “appropriate degree” (in line with depth), and “appropriate quantity” (in line with breadth). Zhuangzi believed that people have “natural desires” and clarified that “natural” needs to display three signs: “self-determining” (no external restrictions), “self-sufficiency” (no competitive desire), and “self-satisfaction” (no dissatisfaction). “Theoretical correspondence” reviews the key issues in the construction of Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature. After reviewing four issues respectively, it focuses on the consensus of scholars in recent years on Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature: Mengzi and Zhuangzi both affirm that people live in a network of relationships. The natural follow-up question is: how many key relationships are there? Different scholars have proposed different interpretations, so this analysis turns to a textual analysis of the Mengzi and the Zhuangzi. Initial analysis identifies a representative passage from each classic, in which each of them identify four key, distinguishable relationships, while further analysis shows these relationships appear in other key passages. These four relationships are relationship with the “transcendental realm,” “human realm,” “natural realm,” and “inner realm.” Mengzi believed that people live in a network of relationships between “Heaven, people, things, and self.” We can use Fu Pei-Jung’s work to summarize Mengzi’s attitude towards the four relationships: be reverent towards the gods, be respectful towards people, be reserved towards things, and be restrained towards yourself. Zhuangzi believed that people live in a network of relationships between “Dao, people, things, and self.” We can use Fu Pei-Jung’s work to summarize Zhuangzi’s attitude towards the four relationships: “be ambling with the Dao, be accommodating with people, be affable with nature, be amiable with yourself.” “Question-answer contrast” reviews four representative comparative studies of Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature. A preliminary verification of the method is conducted while doing the review, showing these four studies more or less exhibit the characteristics of “conceptual correlation,” “theoretical correspondence,” “question-answer contrast,” and “essential comparison,” showing the possible use of this method as a classification tool. While reviewing past research, this chapter also attempts to find clues to the central questions from the comparative studies of Mengzi’s and Zhuangzi’s theories of human nature, variously asking what is humanity’s “original state,” “problem,” “solution,” and “ideal state.” These four questions form a story, which can be labeled the “story of humankind” or the universal way of self-cultivation for humankind. Mengzi and Zhuangzi each answer these four questions. From the perspective of the “heart,” Mengzi describes self-cultivation as entailing “preserving one’s heart,” “losing one’s heart,” “seeking one’s heart,” and “exhausting one’s heart,” while Zhuangzi describes it as “obeying the heart,” “predetermining one’s heart,” “fasting the heart,” and “a mirroring heart.” From the perspective of “benevolence and righteousness,” Mengzi describes self-cultivation as entailing “walking the path of benevolence and righteousness,” “stopping up benevolence and righteousness,” “completely developing benevolence and righteousness,” and “dwelling in benevolence and walking in righteousness,” while Zhuangzi describes it as “benevolence and righteousness follows,” “forcibly insisting on benevolence and righteousness,” “abandoning benevolence and righteousness,” and “temporarily treading on the path of benevolence and temporarily lodging in righteousness.” “Essential comparison” subdivides into two types, “internal” and “external.” “Internal” comparison refers to that done within the Chinese philosophical tradition, and shows that the essential comparisons found in online philosophical encyclopedias and translators’ prefaces can indeed be classified according to the four methodological levels advocated above. “External” comparison attempts to step beyond the Chinese philosophical tradition and uses the above method to make comparisons with the Christian theory of human nature. Based on “conceptual correlation,” Christianity advocates that human beings are “desiring beings” (nephesh), and therefore have “natural desires” and “appropriate desires.” Based on “theoretical correspondence,” Christianity advocates that people live in a network of relationships between “God, humanity, things, and self.” Its attitude can be summarized as “be united to God,” “be loving to people,” “be regulating to creation,” and “be humble to yourself.” Based on “question-answer contrast,” Christianity describes cultivation as entailing “following the heart,” “hardening the heart,” “a new heart,” and “a single heart.” The above comparison shows that the method of analyzing human nature offered helps construct an inter-tradition framework for understanding human nature, able to identify important consensuses and key differences between different traditions.