歷史性、哲學與現代性的命運：勞思光的《中國哲學史》與列奧•施特勞斯

Historicity, Philosophy, and the Fate of Modernity: On Lao Sze-kwang’s History of Chinese Philosophy and Leo Strauss

本文透過勞思光、施特勞斯兩人的哲學思想的比較，探討「歷史性」、「哲學」與「現代性」三個議題的關係。文中的討論集中在以下四個問題：第一、施、勞兩人如何面對歷史性問題？第二、施、勞兩人如何構思哲學活動，如何分析哲學活動與哲學史的關係；第三、施、勞兩人如何構思人（主體性）與歷史的互動？第四、施、勞兩人為何將對哲學史的認知轉化成一種實踐的引導原則？透過對於這四個問題的詳細討論，本文嘗試簡單說明東西兩個不同哲學傳統在現代時代的處境。

The question of how philosophical reflection relates back to the history of philosophy is an essential part of modern philosophy. In this article, we shall analyze the similarities and differences between two important 20th century philosophers, Leo Strauss and Lao Sze-kwang勞思光, who both have studied the history of philosophy extensively. Leo Strauss famously describes the return to the horizon of Classical political philosophy as the only way of avoiding the disorienting, even nihilistic consequences of the modern rejection of the “natural world” (i.e. the “natural right” tradition); furthermore, Strauss claims that the study of past philosophers reveals the eternal tension between philosophy and revelation. Belonging to a very different philosophical background than Strauss, Lao Sze-kwang insists in his History of Chinese Philosophy (3 vols., 1967-82) that we can discover in the history of Confucianism the same “moral subjectivity” (daode zhutixing 道德主體性) which Immanuel Kant has made the cornerstone of modern philosophy. Thus, both thinkers, while exploring the history of philosophy, make substantive claims about transhistorical truths. Although both thinkers may disagree on the fundamental character of the modern project, they both are concerned with the question how the history of philosophy can be transformed into practical knowledge guiding our life today. Finally, both agree in the belief that, through the study of Classical philosophy, we can re-discover a pre-reflexive, pre-scientific attitude towards moral problems, thus partially transcending the narrow horizon of modernity.