朱陸異同的詮釋學轉向

The Hermeneutical Turn in the Distinction between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan

在宋明理學的脈絡中，慣用「李德行」與「道問學」這一組概念來區分朱熹與陸象山的學問進路。「尊德行」強調本心直接發用在道德行為中的重要性，而「道問學」則主張通過格物致知的途徑，以使道德行為取得更為堅實的基礎。這兩種不同的主張形態，引發牟宗三關於自律和他律、道德與知識、活動與存有等道德實踐的有效性判斷；然而從詮釋學的角度來看，朱子「格物致知」與「讀書窮理」的對比，則是典型地把認識論擴展到詮釋學，此即是：對事物之理的認知便是對經典義理（意義）的理解。本研究即是嘗試說明：對朱熹而言，此義理（意義）必須是同一的與自主的，而陸象山的「六經註我」則會導致義理理解的依他性。赫許詮釋學的「意義自主」或「語意自主」論述，對於朱熹之經典詮釋有重要的參考價值。In the context of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, a distinction between 'elevating virtues' (zun dexing) and 'pursuing knowledge' (dao wenxue) has traditionally been established to distinguish the thoughts of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan. In 'elevating virtues' the role of the good conscience in informing a moral act is underscored, whereas in 'pursuing knowledge,' the important dimension of 'investigation of things' (gewu) in strengthening morality is stressed. The implications of these two approaches inspired Mou Zongsan to formulate the dichotomies of autonomy and heteronomy, morality and knowledge, and activity and being in moral practices. Yet, considered from another perspective, the process from 'investigation of things' to 'studying books to grasp the Dao' suggested by Zhu Xi, actually mirrored a process from moral epistemology to hermeneutics, that a comprehension of the principles embodied in things and objects is tantamount to an understanding of the meanings embedded in books. In this article, I investigate the following: With respect to the meaning of the classics, which for Zhu Xi is an important condition, the meaning must be identical and autonomous. But for Lu Jiuyuan the meaning will be heteronomous (Six classics interpret me). The discussion of 'autonomy and heteronomy of meaning' or 'semantic and heteronomous autonomy' of methodological hermeneutics (E. D. Hirsch) is very important for our understanding of the classics, because only when the meaning is autonomous can the truth be understood and further transmitted.