「孟學」或是「荀學」？儒學經典類型詮釋中的問題、方法與實踐

Studies of Mencius or Studies of Xunzi? The Problem, Method and Practice of Confucian Classics Types’ Hermeneutics

中國哲學文本的構成，通常並非採取線性邏輯的論證與推衍來闡述一個議題，而多透過譬喻與象徵等手法來論述一個論題與主張；且這樣的論述中常常是在宇宙論、存有論、知識論與倫理學中交錯論述與相互證明的。因此中國哲學文本在詮釋上即有其開放性與多義性，以致一個文本往往能夠各自表述。學者通常習於賦予儒學文本及其作者「孟學」或是「荀學」的類型學判斷。然而，同樣的儒家經典往往能夠同時被雙方建構為孟學或荀學──如出土文獻、〈大學〉與〈中庸〉、董仲舒之論著、戴震之哲學等等大批哲學文本都有這樣的情形。其關鍵即在於學者多就文本與孟學或荀學間多義性與開放性做發散性詮釋去進行「孟學過濾」或「荀學過濾」，篩選出學者亟欲表彰的哲學類型。是以儒家經典的解讀，必須把握幾個要點：（1）定義「孟學」與「荀學」：先去除儒學共同價值之處，採取「激進的詮釋」，將孟學與荀學的特質極大化，藉此定義學術類型。（2）超越「孟學」與「荀學」：在定義孟荀特色後，應該考量以具有更大包容性與外延性的概念定義之，避免被孟荀制約。（3）回歸「孟學」與「荀學」：儘管儒學文本可能多有歧異性或模糊性，但應避免以「孔學」取代孟、荀兩種類型的儒學詮釋，或以互補主義一味統合孟、荀。

The composition of Chinese philosophical texts usually doesn’t adopt linear logic of argumentation an issue, but more often uses metaphors and symbols to discuss the topic. Such discussions are often complex with cosmology, ontology, Epistemology and Ethics and prove each other. Because of this, the interpretation of Chinese philosophical texts is meaning opening and ambiguous, and a text could often be expressed differently. For example, scholars used to distinguish to School of Mencius and School of Xunzi two types from Confucian classics, and give the judgment to any Confucian and Confucian classics. However, the same Confucian classics could often be constructed by studies of Mencius and studies of Xunzi at the same time, such as Excavated texts, Great Learning and The Mean, Dong Zhong-Shu’s texts, Dai Zhen's philosophy and so on. The key point is that scholars often use the “ambiguity” to filter out studies of Mencius and studies of Xunzi, and reconstruct the philosophical text what they want. Therefore, to interpret the Confucian classics, we must have the principle and a few key points: (1) Define as studies of Mencius and studies of Xunzi: First need to remove the common value of Confucianism, and interpret the text via “radical Hermeneutics” to distinguish the characteristics of studies of Mencius and studies of Xunzi. (2) Beyond studies of Mencius and studies of Xunzi: After defining the characteristics of studies of Mencius and Xunzi, we should consider the definition of concepts with greater inclusiveness and extension to avoid being restricted by school of Mencius or Xunzi. (3) Return to studies of Mencius and studies of Xunzi: Although Confucian texts may be ambiguous or ambiguous, we should avoid replacing studies of Mencius or studies of Xunzi by studies of Confucian, because that is the definition of correct but no use to clarify the texts’ key point. In addition to this, we also shouldn’t interpret the studies of Mencius and Xunzi via Complementarism.