論陳漢生（Chad Hansen）對老子「道」概念的詮釋思想

A Study on Chad Hansen's Interpretation of the Laozian Concept of Dao

10.6503/THJCS.2013.43(4).02

陸基洋(Kei-Yeung Luk)

老子 ； 道 ； 詮釋假說 ； 陳漢生 ； 規範性話語 ； 理論融貫之第二層次 ； Laozi ； Dao ； interpretation hypotheses ； Chad Hansen ； prescriptive discourses ； the second-level meaning of coherence

清華學報

43卷4期（2013 / 12 / 01）

599 - 640

繁體中文

在哲學研究所需遵循的詮釋原則裡，理論的融貫可謂十分重要，其為詮釋思想建立的必要條件。對理論融貫的探討，除需關注詮釋思想自身的一致外，在中國哲學－這種以注釋經典方式進行的哲學活動－的研究脈絡裡，亦需留意理論融貫之第二層次的問題，即詮釋思想自身與被詮釋的文本之間的融貫性。本文旨在通過分析陳漢生對老子「道」概念的詮釋思想，以顯示其中涉及理論融貫之第二層次的問題。首先說明了中國哲學研究的特殊背景及其與理論融貫之關係；其次藉引介學者對於陳漢生詮釋假說之探討與質疑，說明了他通過對中文文法結構及名詞性質的觀察，而以為中文系統裡不具備表徵、描述的語義功能，及不能具有指稱任何個體概念之作用的觀點是難以成立的；第三節通過考察《老子》的基本意涵，指出陳漢生對於老子「道」概念的詮釋思想，即以為老子所欲提倡者為否定所有規範性話語及隨之而起的價值取向的觀點，並不能推廣而使之與文本的其他部分彼此融貫；最後的總結反映，若我們視詮釋的工作為揭示和解釋經典本義，則陳漢生對老子「道」概念的詮釋實有違其與被詮釋的文本之間的融貫性。

The consistency of the principle of coherence is a necessary condition for a valid hermeneutics. In addition to determining whether a theory of textual interpretation possesses internal coherence, in the context of the Chinese philosophical tradition, which relied heavily on the practice of textual commentary, we should also be concerned with a secondary level of coherence; that is, with the question of whether a hermeneutic conform to, and does not conflict with, the content and basic meaning of the original text.This paper, which is divided into four sections, aims to disclose the hidden conflict in Chad Hansen's interpretation of the Laozian concept of Dao from the perspective of this second-level meaning of coherence. The first section of the paper illustrates the unique context of the Chinese philosophical tradition, and the relationship between this context and coherence. The second section discusses scholars' critiques of Hansen's hermeneutic hypotheses in an effort to prove the invalidity of Hansen' understanding of classical Chinese, which was based in an analysis of nouns and syntactic structure. It is argued here that this understanding of classical Chinese, in which the language does not denote any particular objects and does not possess the semantic functions of representation and description, is difficult to substantiate. In the third section, I examine the fundamental significance of the Laozi, and compare it with Hansen's interpretation of the Laozian concept of Dao. On the basis of this comparison, I argue that Hansen's view of Laozi's Dao, which asserts that Laozi promoted the abandonment of all prescriptive discourses and the value orientations that accompanied them, fails to cohere with the basic meaning of the text. The fourth section conclude that, if the purpose of Chinese hermeneutic is to explain and discover the meaning and significance of the text, then a conflict, which violates the second-level meaning of coherence, can be found between Hansen's interpretation of the Laozian concept of Duo and the basic meaning of the Laozi.

1. 方萬全(2007)。真理概念與先秦哲學─論陳漢生的觀點。中國哲學與文化─反向格義與全球哲學，桂林:
   連結：
2. 劉笑敢(2005)。經典詮釋中的兩種內在定向及其外化─以王弼《老子注》與郭象《莊子注》為例。中國文哲研究集刊，26，287-319。
   連結：
3. Alt, Wayne(1996).Philosophical Sense and Classical Chinese Thought.Asian Philosophy,6(2),155-160.
4. Ames, Roger T.(1994).Review of A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought.Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,54(2),553-561.
5. Bo, Mou(ed.)(2002).Comparative Approaches to Chinese Philosophy.Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing.
6. Cheung, Leo Kam-ching(2007).Laozi's Dao as a Structured Whole and Its Ineffability.Proceeding of Emptiness and Nothingness: Conference on Buddhism and Daoism,Hong Kong:
7. Fraser, Chris(2007).Language and Ontology in Early Chinese Thought.Philosophy East and West,57(4),420-456.
8. Fraser, Chris(2007).The Mass Noun Hypothesis and Interpretive Methodology.The Journal of Chinese Philosophy and Culture: Cross-Cultural Interpretation and Global Philosophy,1,58-107.
9. Gibson, Roger F., Jr.(1986).The Philosophy of W. V. Quine: An Expository Essay,Tampa:
10. Grayling, A. C.(1997).An Introduction to Philosophical Logic.Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
11. Hansen, Chad(1992).A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
12. Hansen, Chad(1981).Linguistic Skepticism in Lao Tzu.Philosophy East and West,31(3),321-336.
13. Hansen, Chad(1985).Chinese Language, Chinese Philosophy, and 'Truth'.The Journal of Asian Studies,44(3),491-519.
14. Hansen, Chad(1983).Language and Logic in Ancient China.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
15. Lenk, Hans(ed.),Paul, Gregor(ed.)(1993).Epistemological Issues in Classical Chinese Philosophy.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
16. Raphals, Lisa(1995).A Language Theory of Chinese Thought.Journal of Religion,75(1),80-89.
17. Shen, Vincent(2003).Interpretation of Chinese Philosophical Texts: Basic Considerations and Principles.Chinese Philosophy and the Trends of the 21st Century Civilization,Beijing:
18. Van Norden, Bryan W.(1995).Review of A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought.Ethics,105(2),433-435.
19. Wong, David B.(1998).Review of A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought.The Journal of Asian Studies,57(3),824-825.
20. Yang, Xiaomei(2011).Do Differences in Grammatical Form between Languages Explain Differences in Ontology between Different Philosophical Traditions?: A Critique of the Mass-Noun Hypothesis.Dao,10(2),149-166.
21. 王力編(1981)。古代漢語。北京:中華書局。
22. 王卡點校(1993)。老子道德經河上公章句。北京:中華書局。
23. 香港科技大學人文學部編(1997)。邏輯思想與語言哲學。臺北:臺灣學生書局。
24. 高明(1996)。帛書老子校注。北京:中華書局。
25. 陳波(1998)。奎因哲學研究：從邏輯和語言的觀點看。北京:三聯書店。
26. 陳鼓應(2000)。老子註譯及評介。香港:中華書局。
27. 陳漢生、周雲之譯(1998)。中國古代的語言和邏輯。北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
28. 陸基洋(2011)。論融貫原則對於中國哲學研究的重要性─以《想爾注》對「道」之詮釋為例。中國詮釋學，2011(8)，223-237。
29. 馮耀明(1993)。中國哲學中的語言哲學問題─物質名詞理論的商榷。分析哲學與語言哲學論文集，香港:
30. 葉錦明(2010)。論老子「自然」觀念的詮釋問題。中國詮釋學，2010(7)，86-92。
31. 劉昌元(2001)。研究中國哲學所需遵循的解釋學原則。跨世紀的中國哲學，臺北:
32. 劉笑敢(1997)。老子─年代新考與思想新詮。臺北:東大圖書。
33. 劉笑敢(2006)。老子古今─五種對勘與析評引論。北京:中國社會科學出版社。
34. 樓宇烈(1980)。王弼集校釋。北京:中華書局。