荀子的政治化和倫理化的語言哲學――一個系統性的詮釋、建構、比較與評論

Xunzi's Politicized and Moralized Philosophy of Language: A Systematic Interpretation, Reconstruction, Comparison and Comments

荀子提出了一個名稱分類體系，其中涉及名稱和事物之間的種屬包含關係，其思想領先於古羅馬的波菲利至少六個多世紀，但不如後者的理論系統、完善和深入；他強調了名稱的社會性、約定性和強制性，論述了名稱的「約定俗成」本質，以及「約定俗成」的制名過程，這涉及到語言的社會分工；他論及了名稱的認知功能和交際功能，但更為關注名稱的社會政治功能和道德教化功能；他討論了制名的本體論根據和認識論根據：命名對象本身的同異，以及人的認識器官對這種同異的感知和認識，是制定不同名稱去指涉這些對象的基礎；並討論了制名和正名的一些關鍵性環節（制名之樞要），以及使用名稱的三種基本謬誤（「三惑」），最後探討了名稱在辯說體系中的地位和作用。荀子的名稱理論內容豐富，思想深刻，有很多真知灼見，其最重要的特徵是政治化和倫理化，並有明確的社會約定論承諾，但對有關名稱的認識論和邏輯學方面重視不夠。總的說來，他的理論達到了一定的高度和深度，也有其內在的缺陷和不足；仍然具有現實的指導意義。

Xunzi offers a classification of names, in which he discusses the membership or inclusion relations among the things to which names refer. In this regard Xunzi's thought is at least six centuries ahead of Porphyry's. He suggests the principle and process of ”the establishment of names by social conventions and customs,” highlights the sociality, conventionality, and coerciveness of names, and refers to the division of linguistic labor. He discusses the cognitive and communicative functions of names, but places more emphasis on their social, political, and moral functions. He states that the similarities and differences among cognitive objects provide the ontological basis for regulating names; the sensation and cognition of such similarities and differences provide the epistemological basis. He expounds some essential requirements for regulating names, and analyzes three categories of errors about names and the refutations of them. He also investigates the position and functions of names in the system of argumentation. In short, Xunzi develops a rather systematic theory of names, in which there are some outstanding and illuminating insights. These insights are still alive in contemporary philosophy of language, and could be used to broaden and deepen our understanding of names, and of language more generally. His theory of names obviously acknowledges social conventionalism, its most prominent characteristic is politicization and moralization, and its distinct internal limitation is that it does not pay much attention to the epistemological and logical aspects for regulating names, resulting in limited contribution to the study of names in these aspects.