道學是否為歷程哲學？

Is Daoxue Process Philosophy?

10.7065/MRPC.200706.0155

白詩朗(John H. Berthrong)；俞懿嫻(Yih-Hsien Yu)

道學 ； 李約瑟 ； 歷程哲學 ； 朱熹 ； 懷德海 ； 理 ； 陳淳 ； 北溪字義 ； Daoxue ； Joseph Needham ； Process Philosophy ； Zhu Xi ； Whitehead, A.N. ； Li, Chen Chun ； Beixi ziyi

哲學與文化

34卷6期（2007 / 06 / 01）

155 - 168

繁體中文

自從1950年代李約瑟(Joseph Needham)對朱熹(1130-1200)的道學做評論，認為很多方面道學相似於懷德海的歷程哲學，這對朱子大量的哲學綜合工作是否是正確的評估，引發了爭議。本文認為有許多實質的理由證明朱子和懷德海都是歷程哲學家。根據懷德海的思想，強調歷程的角色或者功能者可說是歷程哲學家。朱熹在他的道學裡顯然強調歷程、變化、轉變和創化等概念。對此說法少有爭議，但問題是到底「歷程」的概念對朱子而言有多麼重要？他有「歷程」概念是否明顯？過去八百年有一個持續的爭辯，朱熹對於歷程作為道學的主題是否那麼明顯？朱熹說宇宙的本質是生生不息，是很有名的。不過許多學者曾主張朱熹的主要學說－「理」，或原理、道理、模式或者秩序，事實上是個靜態的概念。如果「理」是靜態的或者只是秩序或模式的形式原理，很難說是建立歷程哲學的關鍵主題。猶如一個死的御者（靜態的「理」）如何可能駕馭一匹活生生的馬（氣或者生命力）？這是個嚴肅的課題，事實上其後韓國學者討論這個課題，因而展開偉大的「四七辯論」。本文將肯定「理」確實可以被詮釋為一生命原理或理由的理念。果然如此，朱熹的道學可正確地被視為一強烈意義的歷程哲學，如懷德海和利雪(Nicolas Rescher)等學者所主張。朱熹提供了許多對於「理」的詮釋，可能的將這世界上的事物或者事件的原理或者理由，解讀為歷程性的、甚而創造性的，以其在複雜的道學體系中扮演的角色。本文將以陳淳(1159-1223)所著極具影響力的《北溪字義》，證明朱子最具哲學睿智的門徒將「理」視為「歷程性的」。因此基於朱熹道學一派重要的詮釋，我們可以同意並支持李約瑟將朱熹道學視為歷程哲學的睿見。

Ever since Joseph Needham in the 1950s made the comment that in many ways the daoxue of Zhu Xi (1130-1200) resembled the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead there has been a debate on whether or not this is an accurate assessment of the Master Zhu's massive philosophical synthesis. This paper argues that there are substantive grounds to suggest that both Master Zhu and Whitehead are process philosophers. Based on Whitehead’s observation that some philosophers emphasize the role or function or process as a key element of their philosophical vision and hence can be deemed 'process' philosophers, it is clear that Zhu certainly affirmed a central place for notions of process, change, transformation and creativity within his daoxue or Teaching of the Way. In many ways there is little argument about the general nature of this comment: the problem is, just how central to Zhu's daoxue is the notion of process? Is process more apparent than real? There has been a constant debate for the last eight hundred years as to whether or not Zhu Xi's commitment to process as a central theme or motif of daoxue is as strong as it appears at first glance. Zhu was famous for saying that the nature of the cosmos is, for instance, constant generation or shengsheng buxi 生生不息. Nonetheless, many competent scholars have argued that Zhu's crucial notion of li 理or principle, rationale, pattern, or order might actually be a static concept: hardly the kind of key theme to build a process philosophy around if indeed it is the case that principle is a static or merely a formal principle of order or pattern. One of the best ways of putting the question was, how can a dead rider (a static li) ride a live horse (qi 氣or vital force)? This is a serious question, and in fact later Korean scholars debated the issue with great subtlety in the great Four-Seven Debate. This paper will defend the notion that li can indeed be interpreted as a living principle or rationale. If this is the case, then Zhu's daoxue can be rightly deemed a process philosophy in the strongest sense of the term as defined by scholars such as Whitehead and Nicholas Rescher. Although Zhu Xi offered a number of different interpretations of li, it is entirely plausible that principle or the rationale for the things and events of the world can be construed as processive, even creative in terms of its role in the complex daoxue architectonic. For instance, the influential Beixi ziyi [or Neo-Confucian Terms Explained as translated by Wing-tsit Chan] of Chen Chun (1159-1223) proves that one of Master Zhu's most philosophically astute disciples understood li to be proccessive. Therefore, based on one important stream of exegesis of Zhu's daoxue, we can agree with and support Joseph Needham's insight that daoxue is a form of process philosophy.