論荀子定靜思維在儒家品德機器人建構中的定位──以孟、荀理論型態差異談起

On the Positioning of Xunzi's Dingjing Thinking in the Construction of Confucian Moral Robots: A Discussion Based on the Theoretical Differences between Mencius and Xunzi

筆者繼拙作〈孟子定靜工夫還原及儒家機器人建構〉之後，根據劉紀璐儒家機器人研究成果，進一步針對荀子定靜工夫進行還原，並透過此還原成果與AI思維模組議題進行探討，期能在儒學系列探討中，進一步建構出儒家機器人倫理及思維模組結構。鑑此，筆者為求論述格局更開放而有層次，首先針對孟、荀心性論差異進行爬梳，並透過兩者於心性定義之不同，鋪陳了兩者在工夫論發展上之路徑特色。
經由第一章之分析，筆者在探討荀子文本中，除了多處發現「仁」「義」概念之外，亦於〈解蔽〉、〈宥坐〉等篇發現「中正」概念，因而確認荀子思維中具有「中正仁義」之定止工夫，於是筆者在此基礎下，進一步探討〈解蔽〉內容，掌握荀子強調「虛一靜」是成就大清明的重要工夫，因此荀子整體工夫論述中，確實具有「中正仁義而主靜」的實踐形式，不過由於荀子與孟子於心性論點上有所差異，因此兩者在工夫論上雖然都具有定靜思維，但實踐路線上應該會有所不同。因而在此基本掌握下，筆者最後以孔子定靜思維實踐歷程表作為對照，順利將荀子定靜工夫在儒家機器人思維模組建構中，與孟子的特質進行適當之定位。

Following my work“Reconstructing Mencius's Calming and Tranquility and the Construction of Confucian Robots,”I, drawing on Liu Jilu's research on Confucian robots, further reconstruct Xunzi's Calming and Tranquility. This reconstructed work is then intertwined with the topic of AI thinking modules, aiming to further construct Confucian robot ethics and thinking module structures within the context of a series of discussions on Confucianism. To achieve a more open and structured discussion, I first examine the differences between Mencius and Xunzi's theories of mind and nature. By drawing on their differing definitions of mind and nature, I then lay out the distinctive paths in the development of their theories of gongfu.
After my previous work, The Restoration of Mencius's Practice of Tranquility and the Construction of a Confucian Robot, I will proceed to restore Xunzi's practice of tranquility based on Liu Jilu's research findings on Confucian robots. Through this restoration, I will explore the topic of AI thought modules, hoping to further construct the ethical and thought module structure of Confucian robots within this series of Confucian studies. To achieve a more open and layered argumentative structure, I will first examine the differences between Mencius and Xunzi's theories on human nature and mind. Based on their different definitions of human nature and mind, I will elaborate on the distinctive paths of development in their respective methodologies.
Through the analysis in Chapter One, when exploring Xunzi's texts, I not only found multiple instances of the concepts of“benevolence”(仁) and“righteousness”(義), but also discovered the concept of“uprightness”(中正) in chapters like“Dispelling Obscuration”(解蔽) and“Resting in a Seat”(宥坐). This confirms that Xunzi's thought includes the practice of“upright benevolence and righteousness”(中正仁義). Based on this, I will further explore the content of“Dispelling Obscuration,”grasping Xunzi's emphasis on“emptiness, unity, and tranquility”(虛一靜) as a key practice for achieving“great clarity”(大清明). Therefore, Xunzi's overall methodological discourse does indeed contain the practical form of“focusing on tranquility through upright benevolence and righteousness”(中正仁義而主靜). However, due to the differences in their views on human nature and mind, Mencius and Xunzi, despite both having a tranquil mindset in their methodologies, should have different practical paths. With this fundamental understanding, I will finally use a comparative table of Confucius's practice of tranquility to properly position the characteristics of Xunzi's practice within the construction of a Confucian robot's thought module, contrasting it with those of Mencius.