坎陷、善治與「圓善」的現實性－從所謂「青年牟宗三派」出發

Self-negation, Good Governance and the Actuality of the Perfect Good-Proceeding from the Left Mou Zong-san School

周恩榮(En-rong ZHOU)

坎陷 ； 善治 ； 圓善 ； 現實性 ； Self-negation ； Good Governance ； Perfect Good ； Actuality

哲學與文化

48卷2期（2021 / 02 / 01）

137 - 151

繁體中文

牟宗三指出，圓善問題的解決意味著哲學系統究極完成。但他解決「圓善」問題的方式卻落在德與福「詭譎的即」之上。既曰「詭譎」，則此種「相即」關係既不好說是綜和關係，當然也不是分析關係；究竟是何種關係，「頗不好說」。有論者謂其為「辯證關係」，並以「孔顏之樂」標識之。不過，所謂「孔顏之樂」，實質是「苦中作樂」，以此為「圓善」，難言「圓滿」。即使不以「圓善」之福為「孔顏之樂」，而是當作「無待的天福」，就其僅僅作為本體界「存有」的「物自身」而言，也有難以令人滿意者在。因此，牟宗三欲以圓善問題的解決、使哲學系統「究極完成」的努力，便告失敗。然此「失敗」恰恰形成一突破哲學系統「究極完成」所造成的「封閉」，開啟一新的、從「青年牟宗三派」出發解決圓善問題的可能。這一新的、使「圓善」中德福配稱具有現實性的出路，就在牟宗三的「坎陷論」中。由此觀之，牟宗三的「新外王三書」，須以道德的形上學和圓善論為背景，方能得到合理的理解。

In Mou Zong-san's opinion, the resolution of the Perfect Good problem implies the ultimate end of the philosophy system. However, he resolves this problem of the proper proportion between virtue and happiness, with the treacherous connection between them. The word 'treacherous', means the connection between virtue and happiness, 'cannot be said to be synthetical relation, and it is, of course, not analytical relation either'; and it is hard to say which kind of relation it is. Some scholars insist that the treacherous connection between virtue and happiness can be called a dialectical connection, and characterize it with the way inspiring Yan Hui and Confucius' happiness (Kong Yan Le Chu, 孔顏樂處). However, the so called Kong Yan Le Chu (the way inspiring Yan Hui and Confucius' happiness), is actually a happiness adhered with suffer, which cannot be taken perfectly as good. So the effort, that Mou Zong-san accomplishes ultimately the philosophy system, with the resolution of the problem of perfect good, failed at the end. Nonetheless, it is just this failure that breaks the close of philosophy from its ultimate accomplishment, and leads to a new possibility to resolving the Perfect Good problem from the so-called the Left Mou Zong-san School. And this new possibility, which endues an actuality to the proper proportion between virtue and happiness, lies just in Mou's theory of Self-negation. From this point of view, the three books on the New Exercising of Being a Benevolent Governor, must and can only be understood properly from his moral metaphysics and theory of Perfect Good.

1. （明）羅汝芳(2007).羅汝芳集（上）.南京:鳳凰出版社.
2. Berlin, Isaiah(2002).Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
3. 牟宗三(2003).政道與治道.臺北:聯經出版公司.
4. 牟宗三(2003).心體與性體.臺北:聯經出版公司.
5. 牟宗三(2003).中國哲學十九講.臺北:聯經出版公司.
6. 牟宗三(2003).圓善論.臺北:聯經出版公司.
7. 牟宗三(2003).現象與物自身.臺北:聯經出版公司.
8. 李瑞全(1991)。福報與圓善。當代新儒學論文集．內聖篇，臺北:
9. 周恩榮(2014)。牟宗三「坎陷開出民主論」的再檢討。孔子研究，2014(5)
10. 周恩榮(2014)。良知坎陷，如何可能？——牟宗三「良知坎陷說」平議。哲學評論，北京:
11. 林同奇,周勤（譯）(2005)。牟宗三的精神理境：圓善如何可能？——牟宗三「圓善論」初解。思想與文化，2005(5)
12. 康德,楊雲飛（譯）,鄧曉芒（校）(2013).道德形而上學奠基.北京:人民出版社.
13. 康德,鄧曉芒（譯）,楊祖陶（校）(2003).實踐理性批判.北京:人民出版社.
14. 張方玉(2019)。「圓善論」與「孔顏之樂」辨。江蘇師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版），45(4)
15. 陳榮灼(1991)。圓善與圓教。當代新儒學論文集．內聖篇，臺北:
16. 楊祖漢(1990)。牟宗三先生對圓善問題之解決。鵝湖月刊，16(5)
17. 楊澤波(2010)。「詭譎的即」與孔顏樂處。中山大學學報（社會科學版），2010(2)
18. 楊澤波(2011)。牟宗三圓善思想的意義與缺陷。雲南大學學報（社會科學版），2011(2)
19. 楊澤波(2011)。我們應該如何研究《圓善論》。現代哲學，2011(2)
20. 楊澤波(2010)。牟宗三解決圓善問題了嗎？。哲學研究，2010(11)
21. 楊澤波(2010)。四無與圓善——評牟宗三立四無為圓教以解決圓善問題。復旦學報（社會科學版），2010(11)
22. 關鎮強(1997)。無待的幸福——牟宗三先生的幸福觀初探。鵝湖月刊，22(7)