象徵與譬喻：儒學詮釋的兩條進路

Symbol and Allegory: Two Approaches to Confucian Classics Interpretation

在蔣年豐的研究當中，他曾指出：傳統的儒家經典詮釋背後有一個共同的詮釋學基礎，這個基礎可稱之為「興的精神現象學」。這個精神現象學即表現在《詩經》、《春秋》、《論語》、《孟子》等經典中共同採用了充滿「興象」（興發之意象）的思維方式。另一方面，在朱熹的解經觀點中，經典文本的最重要功能之一乃在於它的「中介」，即通過它可以把常道、常理傳介給閱讀者。本文嘗試帶入高達美詮釋學中的譬喻和象徵概念，以之對比地連結蔣年豐與朱熹。在此連結比較中建立了如下的論點：譬喻的是感取物對非感取物之連結，而象徵則是把非感取物疊合到感取物，依此區分，也可以說譬喻近於中介。本文最後判定朱熹解經觀點中語言文字的中介功能乃類似於譬喻。

Nein-feng Chiang in his hermeneutic study explores that there is a common hermeneutic foundation under the traditional text interpretation of Confucian scriptures. This hermeneutic foundation can be described as a spiritual phenomenology of the poetic arising. This phenomenology lies in the thinking way filled with poetic images adopted by the Poetry Scripture, chun-chiu scripture, Analects and Mencius. On the other hand, Zhu Xi in his vocation of interpreting the classics states clearly that one of the most important function of the classic texts is nothing but its medium, namely it can convey the eternal Dao or li to its reader. This paper tries to hold together two hermeneutic concepts (allegory and symbol) borrowed from Gadamer and to compare the idea of Nein-feng Chiang and idea of Zhu Xi. This comparison establishes a point as follows: the allegory is the meaningful relation of the sensible to the non-sensible, symbol the coincidence of the sensible and the non-sensible. According to this differentiation it can to say that medium is more closer to allegory as symbol. And that is to say, the idea of Zhu Xi is closer to allegory.