從“方法”到“路”－項退結與中國哲學的方法論問題

From Method to Road-Thaddaeus Hang and Methodology of Studying Chinese Philosophy

10.7065/MRPC.200509.0061

沈清松(Vincent Shen)

項退結 ； 當代中國哲學 ； 哲學方法論 ； 主導題材研究法 ； 文本詮釋 ； Thaddeus Hang ； Contemporary Chinese Philosophy ； Methodology ； Dominant Themes ； Hermeneutical Principles

哲學與文化

32卷9期（2005 / 09 / 01）

61 - 78

繁體中文

在當代中國哲學學者中，項退結特別關心中國哲學方法論問題。本文之作旨在以對研究中國哲學的方法的討論來紀念他，前一部分將敘述項退結對中國哲學研究方法的主張與貢獻，後一部分將以我個人對研究中國哲學的方法的看法來進一步加以省視和補充。 項退結基於求真與善的根本原則，提出主導題材研究法，將中國哲學歸納為八個題材，包括政治、道德、主宰之天、大自然與人事相互感應、萬物根源、萬物與人事的常道、天地人一體、大自然等，稱為主導題材。按照他自己的分析，這一主題研究法包含了幾個層面：一、哲學史的溯源方法，包括考證。二、現代詮釋學所強調的視域交融法，切忌濫用一己觀點於不相關的事上。三、邏輯與字義語義的分析。四、與西洋哲學作適當的比較。 進而，本人提出，中國哲學研究始於對中國哲學文本的閱讀與詮釋。我對解讀中國哲學原典的根本主張，稱為「動態的脈絡主義」，在此根本原則下，閱讀中哲原典，首先須遵循一般的文本詮釋原則，包含1、文義內在原則，2、融貫一致原則，3、最小修改原則，4、最大閱讀原則等。其次，須尊重中國哲學文本的特性，相對於西哲喜用概念，中哲文本喜用隱喻；相對於西哲喜用論證，中哲喜用敘事，藉以顯示根源性的形象觀念，而非純粹觀念。最後，也應考慮文本作者或學派自己所提供的詮釋原則。在按照以上方法解讀文本之後，可將哲學文本放在更為寬廣的歷史脈絡，甚至放在不同哲學傳統予以比較。最重要的是發揮分析與批判之理性作用，提出自己原創性的見解。

Among contemporary scholars of Chinese Philosophy, Thaddeus Hang is most famous for his concern with methodological problems in studying Chinese Philosophy. This paper contains two parts: first, an exposition of Thaddeus Hang's own method of studying Chinese Philosophy; second, a deeper reflections on methodology in studying Chinese philosophy. Thaddeus Hang proposes a method of studying Chinese Philosophy by dominant themes. For him there are eight major dominant themes in Chinese philosophy: Politics, Morality, Heaven as Ruler, Mutual affection/response between All things and Human Affairs, the Origin of all things, the Constant Way of all things and Human Affairs, Unity of Heaven, Earth and Man, and, he added later, the Nature. For him, we can take these eight dominant themes as criteria to judge the difference and development of different schools and philosophers in Chinese philosophy. These eight dominant themes should be applied on the following four methodological lines: first, one should trace the origin in the history of philosophy, including the investigation by evidences; second, one should look for the fusion of horizons as emphasized by contemporary hermeneutics and avoid subjective arrogance by emphasizing one’s idiosyncrasies on irrelevant matters; third, one should use logical analysis and semantic analysis; fourth, one should do some comparison with Western philosophy. In the second part, I redefine Chinese philosophy and propose several levels of methodological principles in reading and philosophizing on Chinese philosophical texts: First, on the level of general hermeneutic, I propose the principle of intra-textuality; the principle of coherence, the principle of minimum emendation, and the principle of maximal reading. Second, we should pay attention to the hermeneutic characteristics of Chinese philosophy: targeting Idea-Image rather than Pure Ideas, Chinese philosophy prefers to show the movement of meaning by metaphors more than concepts, narrative of inner connected events more than logical argumentation. Third, one should pay attention to the hermeneutic principles or philosophy of language proposed by the author or the school of thoughts under investigation. The historical contextualization and comparative studies should base themselves on the previous work. Most importantly, an original way of philosophizing, based on analytic and critical skills, is invited in any philosophical study, no matter Chinese or Western.

1. 洪巳軒(2017)。戰爭的道德規範：以《荀子‧議兵》為核心之探討。政治科學論叢，73，1-30。
2. 洪巳軒(2019)。墨子對於「兼愛」之論理與實踐精神。國立臺灣大學哲學論評，58，1-38。
3. 洪巳軒(2019)。誰能制定較好的法律？論《韓非子》法治理論的根本困難。政治科學論叢，81，1-29。
4. 侯展捷(2015)。儒家聖人觀之發源：《論語》聖人觀探析。當代儒學研究，19，29-66。
5. 許詠晴(2015)。《論語》的談說方法─「引譬連類」與詮釋方法研究。人文社會學報，16，157-172。
6. 尤煌傑(2015)。臺灣新士林哲學界對知識理論的闡述：繼承與轉化。哲學與文化，42(7)，37-54。
7. (2006)。論「王陽明道德哲學」與「自然道德律」交融之可能向度。哲學與文化，33(3)，105-123。
8. (2007)。中國哲學研究方法之省思。哲學與文化，34(4)，7-24。