中華新士林哲學與中國哲學的交談：以夏大常〈性說〉和于斌《三知論》為例

The Conversation between Chinese Neo-Scholasticism and Chinese Philosophy: Taking ＂Hing-shou＂ by Mathias Hsia and Three Kinds of Knowledge by Cardinal Paul Yü Pin as Examples

蘇嫈雰(Ying-Fen SU)

當代中國哲學 ； 夏大常 ； 于斌 ； 〈性說〉 ； 《三知論》 ； Contemporary Chinese Philosophy ； Mathias Hsia ； Cardinal Paul Yü Pin ； ＂Hing-shou＂(〈性說〉) ； Three Kinds of Knowledge (《三知論》)

哲學與文化

46卷3期（2019 / 03 / 01）

135 - 150

繁體中文

本文以夏大常〈性說〉和于斌《三知論》為例，談中華新士林哲學與中國哲學的交談。首先，夏大常認為知人靈性則可知天，由人性論通形上學，于斌認為人可以從知物貫通知人、知天，即從知識論貫通形上學。路徑不同，理據為何？其次，針對朱熹的看法亦不同。夏大常認為朱熹對靈性不明，從人性論批評朱熹理氣論，于斌從知識論進路肯定朱熹格物致知可開出廣義科學，貫通三知論。本文問題意識有二，一是兩者目的皆是形上學（知天），路徑不同，各自理據為何？雖然針對朱熹的看法不同，但兩者是否有可會通之處？首先，針對兩者觀點的梳理，「靈性」是夏大常〈性說〉的樞紐，于斌主張「格物致知」是中國古來三知論的別名。其次，溯源各自根據的原典，夏大常根據《孟子》盡心、知性、知天的進路談靈性，于斌根據〈大學〉以及〈中庸〉談廣義的科學之知。繼而，針對相關經典文本的再解讀，進一步談夏大常和于斌會通的可能性。總結，中華新士林哲學與中國哲學的交談，兩者目的皆是知天（形上學），會通關鍵點在「知靈性」。

This paper takes the treatise ＂Hing-shou＂ (〈性說〉, on human nature) written by Mathias Hsia (夏大常) and Three Kinds of Knowledge (《三知論》) written by Cardinal Paul Yü Pin (于斌) as examples to discuss the conversation between Chinese Neo-Scholasticism and Chinese philosophy. First of all, Mathias Hsia discussed the metaphysics from the viewpoint of human nature theory, and indicated that understanding the spiritual nature of man can understand God. On the other hand, Cardinal Paul Yü Pin discussed the metaphysics from the viewpoint of theory of Knowledge. That is to say, understanding the knowledge of environment can understand the knowledge of person and God. Since Mathias Hsia and Cardinal Paul Yü Pin discussed the metaphysics from different viewpoint, this paper tries to find out the basis of their viewpoint. Secondly, Mathias Hsia and Cardinal Paul Yü Pin had different perspectives on Xhu Xi's thought. Mathias Hsia indicated that Xhu Xi did not understand the spiritual nature clearly, and criticized Xhu Xi's li-qi theory (理氣論, ＂li＂, 理, the principle; ＂qi＂, 氣, the phenomena) from the viewpoint of human nature theory. In contrast, Cardinal Paul Yü Pin admired ＂Ge-wu Xhi-zhi＂ (格物致知, investigating things and extending knowledge) proposed by Xhu Xi through the viewpoint of theory of knowledge, since the concept of ＂Ge-wu Xhi-zhi＂ can lead up to the broad-scale science, and comprehend three kinds of knowledge. There are two problematics in this paper: (1) Although the viewpoints are different, the purpose of Mathias Hsia's ＂Hing-shou＂ and Cardinal Paul Yü Pin's Three Kinds of Knowledge is the comprehension of metaphysics (understanding Heaven). What is the basis of their different viewpoints? (2) Under different perspectives on Xhu Xi's thought, can Mathias Hsia's ＂Hing-shou＂ and Cardinal Paul Yü Pin's Three Kinds of Knowledge be assimilated together? First of all, this paper summarizes the viewpoint of Mathias Hsia's ＂Hing-shou＂ and Cardinal Paul Yü Pin's Three Kinds of Knowledge. The concept of spiritual nature is the junction of Mathias Hsia's ＂Hing-shou＂. The concept of ＂Ge-wu Xhi-zhi＂ (格物致知) advocated by Cardinal Paul Yü Pin can be also known as that of ＂the three kinds of knowledge＂ in ancient Chinese thought. Secondly, by returning to the original classics, Mathias Hsia discussed the spiritual nature from the perspective of ＂ 盡心＂ (＂jìn-xīn＂, exhausting all one's mental constitution), ＂知性＂ (＂zhī- xìng＂, knowing one's nature), and ＂知天＂ (＂zhī- tiān＂, knowing Heaven) mentioned in Mengzi (《孟子》, The Mencius , or the book of Master Meng). In the other hand, Cardinal Paul Yü Pin discussed the knowledge of broad scale science on the basis of the Daxue (《大學》, the Great Learning) and the Zhongyong (《中庸》, the Doctrine of the Mean). Then, by re-analyzing and re-interoperating related Chinese classics, this paper discussed the possibility of assimilating Mathias Hsia's ＂Hing-shou＂ and Cardinal Paul Yü Pin's Three Kinds of Knowledge. In conclusion, this paper indicates the conversation between Chinese Neo-Scholasticism and Chinese philosophy. The purpose of both Chinese Neo-Scholasticism and Chinese philosophy is to understand Heaven, and the key to their assimilation is ＂understanding spiritual nature＂.

1. 吳瑞珠(2005)。書評：于斌《三知論》。哲學與文化，32(1)，109-115。
   連結：
2. 吳瑞珠(2013)。輔仁大學校訓：真善美聖——啟迪真理與生命的道路。輔仁歷史學報，30，215-249。
   連結：
3. 沈清松(2010)。當代中華新士林哲學與現代性困境的超克。哲學與文化，37(11)，5-22。
   連結：
4. 高凌霞(2007)。亞里斯多德與十三世紀靈魂之爭。哲學與文化，34(05)，21-36。
   連結：
5. 黎建球(2018)。于斌樞機的三知論與天主教大學精神。哲學與文化，45(12)，21-36。
   連結：
6. 〈七宗罪〉，維基百科：https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E4%B8%83%E5%AE%97%E7%BD%AA（檢索於 2018 年 5 月 15 日）。
7. 〈朱熹〉，華人百科：https://www.itsfun.com.tw/%E6%9C%B1%E7%86%B9/wiki702094（檢索於 2018 年 5 月 30 日）。
8. 于斌(1965).三知論.臺北:自由太平洋文化事業公司.
9. 朱熹(1983).四書章句集注.北京:新華書店.
10. 吳經熊(1973).哲學論集.臺北:輔仁大學出版社.
11. 吳經熊(1966).中西文化論集.臺北:國防研究院中華大典編印會.
12. 沈清松(2014).跨文化哲學論.北京:人民出版社.
13. 沈清松(2015)。臺灣新士林哲學與中國哲學——以于斌、羅光、項退結為例。臺灣士林哲學理論發展，新北:
14. 唐君毅(1989).中國哲學原論．原性篇：中國哲學中人性思想之發展.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
15. 徐復觀(1969).中國人性論史——先秦篇.臺北:臺灣商務印書館.
16. 關永中(2018)。關永中，2018 士林哲學研究中心系列演講題目「全知、全能、全善的神如何化解惡？——郎尼根《洞察》第二十章釋義」，輔仁大學倬章樓四樓 DG410 室，2018年 5 月 24 日，現場提供的紙本講義內容，頁 154。

1. 蘇嫈雰(2020)。儒釋耶的交談：以韓愈〈論佛骨表〉和夏大常〈泡製闢妄闢〉為例。哲學與文化，47(4)，73-88。