再論牟宗三儒門正宗的判教構想

Once Again on Mou Zongsan's Conceptions of Orthodox Confucian Criterion

本文主要處理的問題有二：（1）牟宗三究竟有沒有混淆或誤用自律的概念，導致他不恰當的判定朱子學是別子為宗？（2）孟子學對於「惡」之成因的說明，究竟是「本心自棄說」或「本心隱蔽說」？不同詮釋版本不僅決定「本心」是「經驗的」或「超越的」，亦關乎儒學理論奠基的孟子學是否具理論一致性？關於問題（1），雖然牟宗三與康德以「自我立法」規定「自律」的立場是一致的，但牟宗三不止於此，根據他的儒門判教構想──理與動力是否共源於「本心」，及理與動力是否有內在必然的連結，自律有完全的與不完全的型態之分。這是加入理由論元素的進一步區分：前者是「內在自律」（IA）；後者是「外在自律」（EA）。因此，（1-1）牟宗三沒有混淆自律的意義；他對於自律的規定，在與康德共許的意義上更進一步。（1-2）他還是從儒門內部定位朱子學，並無不恰當。關於（2），牟宗三根據他與儒家對「道德」的理解建構了道德的形上學，此函「本心」是無限的。基於「本心」的無限性，則「自棄說」對「惡」之成因的說明不是儒學式的，因為此說意義下的本心與儒學的「自由無限心」不相融貫。

This paper is going to tackle two issues. (1) Whether Mou Zongsan misinterpreted or misused the concept of autonomy, which led to his inappropriate identification of Zhu Xi's philosophy as being different from the orthodox Confucius-Mencius line of tradition. (2) Which is Mencian explanation of the cause of evil, “that ben-xin renounced voluntarily his authority of domination” or “that ben-xin was deprived of its authority of domination by impartial inclinations?” Different interpretations may not only determine which character ben-xin is, transcendental or empirical but also relate to whether Mencius' moral philosophy, which is the foundation of Confucian theory, is coherent or not? Regarding (1), although Mou and Kant both defined autonomy as self-legislation, but Mou went further. According to Mou's conception of the standard of Confucian orthodoxy──whether moral law and motivating force are from the same source, and whether they have a necessary connection, autonomy could be categorized into the complete or incomplete mode. This further distinction is made by adding the elements of “theory of reasons”. The former is Internalism-Autonomy; the latter is Externalism-Autonomy. Therefore, (1-1) Mou did not miscomprehend the meaning of autonomy, and his conception of autonomy went further in the sense of agreement with Kant. (1-2) His identification of Zhu Xi's philosophy is based on Confucian standard, so it is not inappropriate. With respect to (2), Mou constructed the theory of moral metaphysics on the basis of both his and Confucian understanding of morality. Confucian moral metaphysics implies that ben-xin is unconditional. “That ben-xin renounced voluntarily his authority of domination” is not an orthodox Confucian explanation of the cause of evil, for one reason is that ben-xin is unconditional, and the other reason is that ben-xin in this sense is not coherent with orthodox Confucian “ben-xin” which is a “free and unconditional mind.”