英文摘要
|
Since the Song Dynasty, "Gewuzhizhi" has been the subject of much discussion among scholars. From the end of the Song Dynasty, there has been a tendency to understand "Gewuzhizhi" as "knowledge of the beginning and the end, the essence and the tributary." Entering the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, scholars with a tendency to study historical evidences returned to Zheng Xuan (鄭玄) and Kong Yingda (孔穎達)'s commentary again, trying to find its original meaning. These attempts continued into modern times. For example, Feng Youlan (馮友蘭) pointed out the correlation between "Gewuzhizhi" and the learnings of Xunzi (荀子). Later, many scholars accepted Feng Youlan's ideas and made new explanations that departed from the tradition of the learning of Zhu Xi (朱熹). In addition, although his argumentation process is different from that of Feng Youlan, Japan's Itano Chohachi (板野長八) also reached similar conclusions. From their research results, we can find that there are two interpretations of "knowledge" of "Gewuzhizhi". One is to explain it as empirical knowledge, headed by Feng Youlan. The other is to explain it with divine knowledge, like Itano Chohachi. We hope to re-examine the relevant annotations of The Book of Rites (《禮記》), showing that "knowledge" of "Gewuzhizhi" is a kind of physical and technical knowledge.
|