論戴震(1723-1777)與乾嘉時期之考證學

On Tai Chen(1723-1777) and the Evidential Research during the Ch'ien-lung and Chia-ch'ing Eras

本文主要在探究乾嘉學者，尤其是戴震，在重建原始儒學之努力，其要點有三： 一；乾嘉時期之考證學：乾嘉學風以考證知名。之所以如此，主要乃針對宋；明理學家之詮釋儒學而來。由於不滿宋；明學者哲學思辯之研究儒學典籍，而未能把握原始儒學之真貌，乾嘉學者乃轉而以考證之方式來研究儒家之原典。雖然，乾嘉考證學風之興起與理學有關，但考證學實不應視為僅是對宋；明理學之反動或理學之承續而已，它實代表一種自我意識之努力，乃欲恢復原始儒學之真貌，並強化儒學之傳統。二；戴震之思想發展：戴氏雖被視為乾嘉時代最重要之考證學者之一，然戴氏為學之旨趣實不侷限於此。戴氏與其他考證學者不同的是，前者視考證僅為彰顯儒學真相之手段而非目的；而後者則視考證本身為目的，亦即為考證而考證也。因此，戴氏為學實超出考證學之外，而欲以哲學之方法來彰顯儒學之原貌。其哲學著作，如，《緒言》；《原善》及《孟子字義疏證》等，即表明其在此方面努力之成績，其目的即欲以本身之哲學來取代宋；明理學。三；戴氏之哲學信念及方法：戴氏明言其治學乃以明道為目的，而明道則需由考古釋文始。故其為學方法乃是一語言學或訓詁之方法，亦即欲以訓詁之方法來研究哲學之問題，並以之作為彰顯原始儒學真相之最佳方法也。

The paper will focus on the attempt of Tai Chen and his contemporaries to reevaluate and verify key texts and concepts belonging to the Confucian tradition. My paper consists of three sections. Ⅰ. Evidential Research during the Ch'ien-Chia Eras: Rejecting the philosophical speculations of Neo—Confucianism, scholars in the eighteenth century searched for evidence of Classics, and favored a return to the ancient Confucian sources in order to reconstruct the classical tradition. However, k'ao-cheng scholarship became more than merely a reaction against Neo-Confucianism. It represented a self-conscious effort to restore the objective truth of the Confucian Classics, and to strengthen the Confucian tradition. Ⅱ. Tai Chen's Intellectual Development: Tai Chen was known as a leading proponent of the k'ao-cheng school, however, he differed in an important way from other k'ao-cheng scholars of his time. Unlike his contemporaries, who pursued k'ao-cheng scholarship for its own sake, Tai Chen regarded it as primarily a means of revealing the truth. Moreover, he was regarded as a philosopher rather than as merely a k'ao-cheng, or textual, scholar. In this respect, his philosophical writings reflect an attempt to substitute his own philosophy for the Sung philosophy of Principle (li-hsueh). Ⅲ. Tai Chen's Philosophical Beliefs and Approach: Tai Chen's philosophical writings indicate the impact philology had on philosophical issues. The methodology Tai Chen adopted was essentially linguistic, that is, husun-ku (etymology, lit., “glossing”). The merit of this methodology was its precision in defining the meaning of key terms in the Classics, and this in turn had important ramifications for the understanding of the traditional systems of belief.