再思朱子的「理」：「存在之理」還是「總文路」？

Rethinking Zhu Xi's Li:“Principle of Existence”or“Pattern”?

本文探討朱子哲學中存有論部分的「理」的基本涵義，具體來說是要對兩種詮釋做比較：到底「理」的根本身分較宜詮釋為「萬物憑之而有其存在」的「存在之理」（存在的根據或「所以然」），還是「萬物依循之而運作、運行」，近期有英語著作譯為 “Pattern”（P 為大寫）的「總文路」？本文認為，「總文路」的詮釋對朱子有關「理」的界說和圍繞著「理」的一系列存有論觀點，皆能給出言之成理的說明。反觀「存在之理」的詮釋，則或未足夠相應其中三項，即「理有偏全：上下兩層之理有內容上的連繫」、「理非一物」、「理為形而上，氣為形而下」。

In interpreting Zhu Xi's (1130-1200) primary ontological concept, li, I used to adopt “principle of existence” (PoE) proposed by Mou Zongsan (1909-1995) and, in a sense, also by Yung Sik Kim. PoE denotes the ontological ground of all beings, without which nothing can exist. However, Stephen C. Angle and Justin Tiwald's recent book, Neo-Confucianism: A Philosophical Introduction, has made me reconsider my view. Previously, a popular interpretation of li as pattern(s) (p is lowercase and can be plural) deterred me with its reductionism that there are only qi's or things' patterns – empirical lis – and thus misses Zhu Xi's view that li is ultimately “above form” or metaphysical. Angle and Tiwald make a breakthrough by interpreting li as Pattern (P is uppercase and can only be singular) to indicate that above various empirical things' patterns there is one highest and common Pattern, namely, “life-giving generativity”, to guide all things in the universe. By regarding different patterns as various particular manifestations of the one Pattern, Zhu Xi's two-tier worldview is thus preserved. This paper therefore rethinks Zhu Xi's li by comparing this refined li-as-Pattern with li-as-PoE I used to advocate. It concludes that li-as-Pattern is a superior interpretation as it captures better three of Zhu Xi's ontological views: “li can be partial or complete”, “li is not an entity”, and “li is above form”.