中國哲學研究方法論芻議──反省劉笑敢教授「反向格義」與「兩種定向」的觀點

On Methodology of Studying Chinese Philosophy-Reflection on Professor Liu Xiaogan's Ideas of ‘Reverse Analogous Interpretation' and ‘Dual Orientations'

劉笑敢教授提出「反向格義」和「兩種定向」的觀點，引起學界不少討論。本文即對這兩個觀念稍作分析，以期進一步改善往後有關討論的水平。本文以為，「反向格義」的觀念容易忽視中文學界之所以用西方哲學概念來解釋「中國哲學」的深層原因，若隨意使用有關概念，容易增添混亂，對「中國哲學」的發展未必有利；而「兩種定向」則高估了兩種「中國哲學」研究方法的分歧，以致未能提出如何使兩種方法互相配合，以取對方之長，來補己方之短。本文提出，西哲康德有關哲學本質的討論，以及佛教「判教」理論，當對融通兩種研究方法，有著一定啟示。 The ideas of ‘reverse analogous interpretation' and ‘dual orientations' as suggested by Professor Liu Xiaogan draw a lot of attention in academia. This essay evaluates the rationale of these ideas, aiming at helping improve the quality of relevant discussion. I argue that the idea of ‘reverse analogous interpretation' may over-simplify the phenomenon of explaining ‘Chinese philosophy' by means of Western ideas. The use of this idea may therefore distract the focus of discussion. For the idea of ‘dual orientations', I argue that it tends to exaggerate the differences between various research methods. As a result, it fails to see the way of harmonizing them and making them supplementary to each other. To a large extent, I suggest that Immanuel Kant's idea of nature of philosophy and Buddhist idea of ‘doctrinal classification' help communicate different research methods, and make Liu's idea more comprehensive.