經典研究的兩個神話：從戴震到章學誠

Two Myths of Classical Studies: From Dai Zhen to Zhang Xuecheng

馮耀明(Fung Yiu-Ming)

戴震 ； 章學誠 ； 訓詁 ； 道問學 ； 知識主義 ； 反知識主義 ； 自然主義 ； Dai Zhen ； Zhang Xuecheng ； Philology ； Daowenxue ； Intellectualism ； Anti-intellectualism ； Naturalism

興大中文學報

42期（2017 / 12 / 01）

1 - 56

繁體中文

余英時認為：戴震「由訓詁而通經以明道」，章學誠則代之以「由校讎而通文史以明道」，二者皆落在「道問學」的模式之內，而分別與宋學之「鑿空言理」相抗衡。二者看似殊途同歸，同樣使經學或經典研究引向余氏所謂「智識主義」(intellectualism)的道路，而揚棄宋學中的「反智主義」(anti-intellectualism)傳統。本文的目的在指出：無論是戴震的訓詁方法之實質運用，或章學誠的歷史方法之具體運作，皆非如余氏所謂「經驗的研究」(empirical studies)，純以語言證據和歷史事實而作之論斷，而無形上的思辯或主觀的想像。本文要論證：二者皆被余氏誤套在知識化(intellectualization)的膺假論旨(pseudo-thesis)之中，而余氏並不知此乃欲去哲學化(de-philosophicalization)而去不了的兩個神話(two myths)。

Yu Ying-shih 余英時 thinks that Dai Zhen's approach of ＂using philology to interpret Confucian classics for understanding dao＂ and Zhang Xuecheng's idea of ＂using jiaochou 校讎 (collation) to explicate literature and history for understanding dao＂ are different methods for the same goal. That is, both give up the unsubstantial metaphysics of Song learning 宋學, have an approach of ＂daowenxue＂ 道問學 (following intellectual knowledge), and make an academic shift of classical studies to ＂intellectualism＂ and thus reject the ＂anti-intellectualism＂ in the tradition of Song learning. This paper aims at demonstrating that, actually, both Dai Zhen's using of philological method and Zhang Xuecheng's using of historical method are not the so-called ＂empirical studies＂ merely based on linguistic evidences and historical facts and thus without metaphysical speculations and subjective imagination, as claimed by Yu Ying-shih. In this paper, I will argue that both Dai Zhen and Zhang Xuecheng's theories are misinterpreted by Yu Ying-shih as an approach of ＂intellectualization.＂ I think this is a pseudo-thesis. They are two myths of classical studies which are unsuccessful approach to de-philosophicalization.

1. Fung, Yiu-ming(2012).Wang Yang-ming's Theory of Liang-zhi: A New Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming's Philosophy.清華學報,42(2),261-300.
   連結：
2. 中國哲學書電子化計劃：http://ctext.org/zh。
3. Chong, Kim-chong(ed.)(2018).Dao Companion to the Zhunagzi
4. Collingwood, R. G.(1994).The Idea of History.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
5. Dearden, R. F.(ed.),Hirst, P. H.(ed.),Peters, R. S.(ed.)(1972).Education and Development of Reason.London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Fischer, David Hackett(1970).Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.London:Harper A Row, Publishers, lnc..
7. Hu, Shih(1967).Scientific Spirit and Method in Chinese Philosophy.The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture,Honolulu:
8. Mou, Bo(ed.)(2006).Davidson's Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy: Constructive Engagement.Leiden:Brill Academic Publishers.
9. Ryle, Gilbert(1990).The Concept of Mind.London:Penguin.
10. Wittgenstein, Ludwig,Anscombe, G.E.M.(ed. trans.),Rhees, R.(ed.)(1953).Philosophical Investigations.Oxford:Blackwell.
11. Yu, Ying-shih(1973).Some Preliminary Observations on the Rise of Ch'ing Confucian Intellectualism.Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series,11,105-144.
12. Yu, Ying-shih(1989).Tai Chen's Choice between Philosophy and Philology.Asia Major, third series,2(1),79-108.
13. Yu, Ying-shih(1980).Toward an Interpretation of the Intellectual Transition in Seventeenth-Century China.Journal of the American Oriental Society,100(2),115-125.
14. 王先謙(2012)。莊子集解。北京:中華書局。
15. 王陽明、吳光編校(1992)。王陽明全集。上海:上海古籍出版社。
16. 余英時(1993)。章學誠文史校讎考論。中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊，64(1)，205-221。
17. 余英時(1992)。中國思想傳統的現代詮釋。江蘇:人民出版社。
18. 余英時(2000)。論戴震與章學誠：清代中期學術思想史研究。北京:生活．讀書．新知三聯書店。
19. 余英時(1974)。章學誠的「六經皆史」說與「朱陸異同論」。新亞書院學術年刊，16，109-140。
20. 徐復觀(1993)。中國思想史論集。臺灣:學生書局。
21. 梁啓超(2003)。清代學術概論。天津:天津古籍出版社。
22. 章學誠(1985)。章學誠遺書。北京:文物出版社。
23. 章學誠、倉修良編(1993)。文史通義新編。上海:上海古籍出版社。
24. 馮耀明(2003)。「超越內在」的迷思：從分析哲學觀點看當代新儒學。香港:中文大學出版社。
25. 錢穆(1957)。莊老通辨。香港:新亞研究所。
26. 戴震、張岱年編(1995)。戴震全書。安徽:黃山書社。

1. 馮耀明(2019)。莊荀詁釋四題。東海中文學報，38，1-33。
2. 馮耀明(2021)。儒學研究的展望：一個方法論的反思。成大中文學報，73，1-25。
3. 蕭詠燮(2023)。從亞里士多德倫理學重探戴震思想。東華漢學，37，49-84。