莊子與人文之源

Zhuang-zi and the Source of Humanism

經典的意義是未完成的，許多經典的意義聚焦於作者，作者不死。莊子就像許多經典的作者一樣，其思想不斷的生成，可巫可佛，可文可史，甚至可沙特(Jean-Paul Sartre, 1905～1980)，也可海德格(Martin Heidegger, 1889～1976)，當然也可儒。然而，莊子之於儒門並非純是後儒的重新建構，而是內在於《莊子》文本即有頑強的證據。「莊子儒門說」在莊子學史上絕不陌生，但在晚明，此說的內涵才頗細緻的展開。「莊子儒門說」的重點不在爭學派的歸屬，而在如何界定莊子思想的核心義。本文將從原始儒家的人文主義著眼，指出原始儒家的人文主義並非僅限於此世間的社會性，而是劉勰所說的「人文之元，肇自太極」，亦即此人文主義建立在基源的存有論上。儒家主張的人文預設了一種存有的連續性，也預設了人間秩序有超越的源頭，由隱而顯，「顯」彰「隱」源。莊子強調主體的氣化性（遊乎天地之一氣）、語言性（卮言）、技藝性（技進乎道）、與世同構性（體盡無窮）。這種氣化日出的精神既是不斷遊化，但也不斷湧現新理，亦即帶來新的「人文」。晚近質疑莊子人文說者，主要是從同一哲學與解構哲學的立場立論。本文認為人文、同一與解構三種立場不但不衝突，而且莊子的人文精神需要建立在這兩者的基礎上。因為人文精神如沒經過同一哲學此關卡，它是無源的，但它不能止於此同一狀態。同樣的，氣化主體需要瓦解意識二元對立的惰性結構，它的創化性才可源生不窮，這種解構精神也可視為有益儒家人文精神的白血球功能，但它的價值位階不能超越莊子的創化性之地位。莊子人文－－超人文－－反人文三位一體的思想，恰可活化太受制於此世政教倫理導向的後期儒家價值體系，因為這種具有創造形式的氣化主體正是儒家人文主義的基礎。

The meaning of classics has yet to attain completion because such meaning is focused on the author—and authors never die. Zhuangzi resembles the other authors of the classics in that his thought has continued to grow and develop. It can be interpreted from various perspectives, including that of shamanism or Buddhism, literature or history, and even that of the Western philosophers Sartre and Heidegger. Given this, it goes without saying that Zhuangzi’s thought can also be interpreted from a Confucian point of view. However, it is important to stress that Confucian interpretations of Zhuangzi are not simply reconstructions made by later Confucians, but rather are based on strong evidence found within the text itself. In the history of Zhuangzi studies, “Confucian theories of the Zhuangzi” are certainly not unfamiliar. Yet, in the late Ming Dynasty, the implications of these theories began to unfold. At that time, the main issue in “Confucian theories of the Zhuangzi” did not concern disputes over Zhuangzi’s sectarian identity, but rather centered on how to define the core meaning of Zhuangzi’s thought. This article starts from the viewpoint of original Confucian humanism, and points out that it did not focus exclusively on this-worldly social concerns, but instead was grounded in a primordial ontology, as illustrated in Liu Xie 劉勰’s statement: “The origin of human culture began with the Supreme Ultimate.” Confucian humanism assumed the continuality of being and the transcendent source of worldly order: from the hidden there emerged the manifest, and the manifest displays the source of the hidden. Zhuangzi emphasizes the nature of the subject’s transformative qi (氣化性), its language (語言性)its skill (技藝性), and its shared structure with reality(與世同構性). The energy that is produced from this daily transformation of the subject’s qi is precisely an uninterrupted cultivation, but it also represents the continual emergence of new principle, which brings with it a new “humanism.” Recently, those who question Zhuangzi’s humanism do so from the philosophical positions of either identity or deconstruction. However, this article suggests that identity, deconstruction and Zhuangzi’s humanism are not in conflict, and that the spirit of Zhuangzi’s humanism must be established on the foundation of both identity and deconstruction. The spirit of this type of deconstruction can also be viewed as increasing the white blood cell function of Confucian humanism’s spirit, but its degree of value cannot exceed that of Zhuangzi’s creative transformation. The trinity of Zhuangzi’s thought—humanism, super-humanism, and anti-humanism—can invigorate later Confucianism, which has been overly constrained by worldly morality, because the subject of qi transformation infused with creativity is the genuine foundation of Confucian humanism.