莊子論行動——兼論所謂觀點主義

Zhuangzi on Action: With a Discussion on Perspectivism

本文旨在釐清莊子在行動問題上的看法。一般認為，莊子非常重視所謂「觀點」或「相對性」，但這似乎會令得莊子哲學遭受到「自我否定」的挑戰，即：如果觀點的對錯皆相對於不同角度而成立，則莊子哲學本身是否得落入相同的困境？劉昌元先生以觀點主義詮釋莊子，正好表達了上述的質疑。本文認為，這個質疑的出現，是由於將莊子對相對性的強調從他的行動理論中割裂開來所致。為了消解這個質疑，本文主張：莊子建構相對主義不過是起點，他的目的是要將之落實到如何行動的問題上。扣緊這兩個步驟，我將從兩個論旨重構莊子的行動理論。第一個論旨是：各種判斷會相對於不同角度而變異，故判斷本身沒有所謂的普遍性。莊子從指涉、描述、評價三方面證成這個論旨。第二個論旨是：由於判斷本身沒有所謂的普遍性，故行動的方式也沒有所謂的普遍性。這兩個論旨可組合成一個行動理論：沒有一個判斷能普遍符合所有角度，因而沒有一個行動的方式能普遍適用於所有情況。反過來可以這樣說：就像我們要因應不同的角度而作出不同的判斷，我們亦要因應不同的狀況而施行不同的行動方式。根據上述的理解，對相對性的強調非但不會令莊子哲學遭到自我否定的困擾，它甚至必須被理解為莊子的行動理論賴以成立的基礎。

This paper aims to clarify Zhuangzi’s view on how to act appropriately in the world. Based on a general view that Zhuangzi pays attention to “perspective” or even “relativity,” some have argued that Zhuangzi seems to be self-refuting when building up his philosophy—that is, if, as Zhuangzi himself points out, each and every idea is correct under some standards but incorrect under others, then, consequently, his philosophy cannot be generalized due to the fact that what he claims can only be vaild under the standard he himself sets up. Professor Chang-Yuan Liu advances this critique in a paper where he interprets Zhuangzi’s view of Tao using a Perspectivist approach. But, as will be seen, this criticism inappropriately separates Zhuangzi’s emphasis on relativity from his theory of action. To avoid this, this paper argues that Zhuangzi’s view of action should be regarded as being grounded in his arguments concerning relativism. In short, Zhuangzi’s theory of action can be construed as consisting of two theses. The first is that each and every judgment is not itself absolutely fixed as it often varies according to different perspectives or standards. It will be argued that Zhuangzi justifies this thesis by introducing three kinds of judgment, i.e. reference, description, and evaluation, with the second type of judgment being based on the first. Just as no judgment can satisfy all standards, there cannot be a way of acting that can be applied to many different circumstances. In other words, just as corresponding judgments should be made according to different perspectives, we should also adopt different types of appropriate actions when facing different problems. From this we can conclude that there is no reason to attack Zhuangzi by saying that he is definitely self-refuting for, as I shall argue, his emphasis on relativity is theoretically responsible for his theory of action.