張君勱的新儒學啟蒙計畫：一個現代vs.後現代視角

The Enlightenment Project of Carsun Chang's Neo-Confucianism: A Modern vs. Postmodern Perspective

10.6163/tjeas.2011.8(1)209

何信全(Hsin-Chuan Ho)

張君勱 ； 新儒家 ； 哈伯瑪斯 ； 李歐塔 ； 現代vs.後現代視角 ； Carsun Chang ； Neo-Confucianism ； Habermas ； Lyotard ； Modern vs. Postmodern Perspective

臺灣東亞文明研究學刊

8卷1期（2011 / 06 / 01）

209 - 234

繁體中文

本文從「現代vs.後現代」的視角，檢視張君勱新儒學中的啟蒙精神，並探討此種啟蒙哲學如何應對因現代性某些偏弊而引發的爭議。本文指出，現代社會與文化中所謂「理性獨霸」的缺失，乃是實證主義思潮之下，工具理性當道以致造成文化偏頗與社會宰制。面對此一偏弊，哈伯瑪斯與李歐塔皆有深刻的反思，然而二者的進路與對治之方卻迥異其趣。本文根據哈伯瑪斯與李歐塔的論爭脈絡，指出張君勱的新儒學啟蒙計畫就解決現代社會的偏弊而言，並非採取李歐塔式的解構與顛覆理性進路，而是回歸儒家仁智兼顧的基本論旨。此一基本論旨，與哈伯瑪斯之重返啟蒙傳統的未竟志業，二者頗有同工之處：張君勱與哈伯瑪斯各自傳承的中國新儒學與西方近代啟蒙傳統，皆有其未竟志業，可以進一步開發立基於人類理性基礎之上豐厚的內在哲學資源，以回應後現代場景下的相關挑戰。

This paper interprets the Enlightenment spirit in Carsun Chang's neo- Confucianism from a modern vs. postmodern perspective, and further, to explore his approach for the issue of the criticisms of modernity. I point out that the problem of so-called ”hegemony of reason” results from the employment of instrumental reason, which originates from positivism prevailing in modern age, and consequentially tends to the unavoidable phenomenon of cultural bias and social domination. For the elimination of the deficiencies of modernity, Habermas and Lyotard adopt the different approaches respectively: the former makes an effort to the completion of unfinished project of Enlightenment, and the latter focuses on the deconstruction of modernity. From this point of view, I indicate that just as Habermas, there is also an unfinished project of neo-Confucianism for Chang. Instead of Lyotard's approach of deconstruction, Chang's approach to remedy the deficiencies of modernity is the Enlightenment project of neo- Confucianism which based on both ren (仁) and zhi (智). That is to say, for Chang and Habermas, the solution of the deficiencies of modernity should be still based on human reason, and at this point, we could seek the philosophical resources from both Western Enlightenment tradition and Chinese neo-Confucianism to response the related challenges in postmodern era.

1. Bottomore, Tom(1984).The Frankfurt School.Chichester:Ellis Horwood.
2. Chang, Carsun(1957).The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought.New York:Bookman Associates.
3. Habermas, Jürgen(1985).Modernity versus Postmodernity.Habermas and Modernity,Cambridge:
4. Habermas, Jürgen,Cronin, Ciaran(ed.),De Greiff, Pablo(ed.)(2005).The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory.Cambridge:Polity Press.
5. Habermas, Jürgen,Lawrence, Frederick G.(tr.)(1987).The Entry into Postmodernity: Nietzsche as a Turning point.The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures,Cambridge, MA:
6. Habermas, Jürgen,McCarthy, Thomas(tr.)(1991).The Theory of Communicative Action.Cambridge:Polity Press.
7. Habermas, Jürgen,McCarthy, Thomas(tr.)(1991).The Theory of Communicative Action.Cambridge:Polity Press.
8. Habermas, Jürgen,Shapiro, Jeremy J.(tr.)(1987).Knowledge and Human Interests.Cambridge:Polity Press.
9. Kearney, Richard(1986).Modern Movements in European Philosophy.Manchester:Manchester University Press.
10. Kolb, David(1990).Postmodern Sophistications: Philosophy, Architecture, and Tradition.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
11. Lyotard, Jean-François,Bennington, Geoff(tr.),Massumi, Brian(tr.)(1984).The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
12. McCarthy, Thomas(1978).The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas.Cambridge:Polity Press.
13. 胡秋原(1983)。一百三十年來中國思想史綱。臺北=Taipei:學術出版社=Xue shu chu ban she。
14. 張君勱(1981)。中西印哲學文集。臺北=Taipei:臺灣學生書局=Taiwan Student Books Company。
15. 張君勱(1977)。人生觀。科學與人生觀：科學與玄學論戰集，臺北=Taipei:
16. 勞思光(2007)。關於「中國哲學研究」的幾點意見（代發刊辭）。中國哲學與文化（第一輯）：反向格義與全球哲學，桂林=Guangxi:
17. 蔡錚雲(1995)。從現象學到後現代。臺北=Taipei:蔡錚雲=Tsai, Cheng-yun。