王弼「性其情」的人性遠近論

Wang Pi's Discourse on the Proximity of Human Nature in "Naturalization of Feeling"

10.6351/BICLP.200003.0339

周大興(Ta-Hsing Chow)

王弼 ； 性情 ； 人性論 ； 玄學 ； 理學 ； Wang Pi ； nature and feeling ； theory of human nature ； Neo-taoism ； Neo-confucianism

中國文哲研究集刊

16期（2000 / 03 / 01）

339 - 373

繁體中文

何晏的聖人無情論與王弼的聖人有情無累說，是魏晉玄學中的有名論辯，也牽涉如何理解玄學人性論的重要課題。本文從王弼主張聖人之情應物而無累的說法出發，參照其《論語釋疑》中的「性其情」的注文，重新檢討王弼人性論的傳統理解，嘗試提出一個嶄新的詮釋。作者認為，王弼的人性論以孔子「性相近，習相遠」的主張為基礎，合理解釋了人人稟賦的形上自然的相「近」本性，以及與後天造就的氣質才性差異的遠近關係。依照王弼「性其情」說的理解，孔子「性相近，習相遠」的意思包含三義︰一為人之先天本性相近而未遠，次為後天的情近性與情遠性，以及二者的遠近關係。最後，作者針對王弼玄學的「性其情」與宋明理學的「性其情」予以比較，以顯示理學家對於玄學觀念思惟的吸收與消化，從中可以看出玄學與理學的義理傳承，也可以透顯二者核心思想的差異。

Ho Yen's theory that the sage has no affections, as well as Wang Pi's argument that the sage has affections but is not affected by them, are famous topics in the Wei-Chin hsuan-hsueh. They have an important bearing on how we should understand hsuan-hsueh's theory of human nature. This essay begins with Wang Pi's position that the sage's feelings respond to all things but do not depend on them. By looking at his commentary for Lun-yu shi-yi (Explication of the Analects), where he writes ”naturalize the feelings,” we can investigate anew the traditional understanding of Wang Pi's theory of human nature, and attempt to present a new interpretation.The author believes that Wang Pi's theory of human nature was based on Confucius' assertion that ”By nature people are closely similar, but through learning they become dissimilar.” This metaphor of proximity here was a reasonable explanation of how, a priori, everybody received more or less the same original nature but a posteriori moved further apart according to the disposition of what they experienced and accomplished. According to Wang Pi's position of ”naturalizing the feelings,” Confucius implied three things by the statement in the Analects. First, the basics of human nature before experience are mutually close rather than mutually distant. Second, with experience comes the difference between all feelings which are close to this nature and those which depart from nature. Finally, there are relations of proximity between the two.In conclusion, the author aims to compare Wang Pi's hsuan-hsueh (Neo-Taoism), and its position of ”naturalizing the feelings,” with Sung-Ming Neo-Confucian version of this position. In this way it becomes clear how Neo-Confucianists took over and assimilated the conceptual thought of Neo-Taoism, and we can see the theoretic heritage of Neo-Taoism and Neo-Confucianism, while envisioning the differences in the core of their thinking.

1. 明黃宗羲(1986)。宋元學案。
2. 晉陳壽(1985)。三國志。
3. 梁皇侃(1990)。論語集解義疏。
4. 魏何晏(1968)。論語集解。
5. 王葆玹(1987)。正始玄學。
6. 王曉毅(1994)。人物志譯注與研究。
7. 牟宗三(1983)。心體與性體（第2冊）。
8. 牟宗三(1985)。圓善論。
9. 牟宗三(1983)。中國哲學十九講。
10. 余英時(1980)。中國知識階層史論：古代篇。
11. 余敦康(1991)。何晏王弼玄學新論。
12. 呂凱(1980)。魏晉玄學析評。
13. 林麗真(1988)。王弼《論語釋疑》的老子義。書目季刊，22(3)，41。
14. 林麗真(1988)。王弼。
15. 唐君毅(1984)。中國哲學原論。
16. 唐君毅(1990)。哲學論集。
17. 唐君毅(1984)。中國哲學原論（第三冊）。
18. 許抗生(1989)。魏晉玄學史。
19. 勞思光(1980)。中國哲學史（三上）。
20. 湯一介(1983)。郭象與魏晉玄學。
21. 湯用彤(1984)。魏晉玄學論稿。
22. 程明道(1983)。河南程氏遺書。
23. 馮友蘭。貞元六書〈下〉。
24. 楊勇(1988)。世說新語校箋。
25. 樓宇烈(1981)。王弼集校釋。

1. 羅翌倫(2008)。王弼「崇本舉末」與「崇本息末」之辨—以《論》、《老》、《易》的互補觀點出發。東吳哲學學報，17，65-95。
2. 吳冠宏(2007)。王弼聖人有情說與儒、道、玄思想之關涉與分判。國文學報，42，55-86。
3. 蕭振聲(2018)。老子性超善惡論評析。中央大學人文學報，65，1-31。
4. 謝如柏(2014)。王弼自然與名教觀中的實踐與心性意蘊。淡江中文學報，31，55-89。
5. 楊穎詩(2021)。自然與性情：重新檢視王弼「性其情」的義理內涵。政大中文學報，35，241-265。
6. 楊穎詩(2022)。魏晉名教的義涵與歸趣：以王弼、郭象仁義觀為論述核心。鵝湖學誌，68，25-51。
7. (2010)。神與真—王弼的心性理論。文與哲，17，47-82。
8. (2024)。魏晉士族兩性互動－以情、禮為探討重點。高雄師大國文學報，39，99-138。