湯用彤玄學典範論述的歷史探源與文化反思──從民初科玄論戰談起

The Historical Origin and Cultural Reflection of Tang Yongtong’s Metaphysical Paradigm: An Account of the Debate Concerning Science and Metaphysics in the Early Republic Years

本文嘗試透過1923年科玄論戰的線索，重揭這一場論戰後的餘波盪漾；在此跨文化視域下的「玄學」語境，實暗藏蓄意待發的潛力。湯用彤置身於折衷兩端的學衡派，其中西文化融貫說與哲學文化學的反思視角，實與科玄論戰下的玄學派不同，這看似此「玄」非彼「玄」的各自表述，卻未嘗沒有尚待挖掘的潛在關係。
晚近在「去形上學」之思潮的衝擊下，對湯用彤以本體論為宗的玄學典範論述，開始出現不少質疑與批判的聲音。筆者認為湯氏之所以站在知識論與本質論的位階，提出「言意之辨」的新方法與新眼光，並視之為名理（認識論）到玄學（本體論）的發展，實有其回應跨文化思潮及重展中國文化殊趣的時代關懷，值得我們寄予同情的理解與批判之承繼。在此之際，我們有必要探入湯用彤玄學本體論生發的歷史脈絡，了解其所謂的玄學本體並不同於西方哲學意義下的「本體」。除科學思辨的方法外，尚有玄遠、玄靜、玄妙之本體境界的微意，可謂身處對治科玄論戰前後的學衡派，恪守奉行「昌明國粹、融化新知」之具體落實的產物。
基於如上的關懷，本文嘗試分判此「玄」非彼「玄」，一則由科玄論戰延伸而來的情理之爭，考察從唯情論到情本論這一條線索；二則檢視當今湯用彤之玄學典範論述所面臨的挑戰，並開啟以氣通道及玄化主客的發展，使湯用彤玄學形上學得以因應時代思潮的演變，而有所承繼、修正與拓深。本文希望據此可以開發魏晉玄學「接著講」的學術能量。

This article attempts to use the clues of the science-versus-metaphysics debate in the 23rd year of the Republic of China to re-expose the aftermath of the debate. Behind the metaphysics context in the cross-cultural perspective is actually the potential for deliberate development. Situating Tang Yongtong in the debate between the two extremes and his reflective perspective of philosophical culture between China and the West distinguishes him from those involved in the debate. Xuan is thus interpreted differently, leaving room for a further investigation.
Later, under the impact of the de-metaphysical trend of thought, many questions and criticisms surrounding Tang Yongtong’s metaphysical discourse based on ontology began to appear. The author believes that Tang’s stance on epistemology and essentialism stands to reason. The new method and new vision of yanyi zhi bian (‘to distinguish meaning’), which has been regarded as the development from nominal theory (epistemology) to metaphysics (ontology), was in response to the cross-cultural trend of thought, and they re-exhibited the special interest in Chinese culture. His view merits our sympathetic understanding and critical discussion.
It is necessary for us to explore the historical context of Tang Yongtong’s metaphysical ontology and to understand how its metaphysical ontology differs from Western ontology. In addition to scientific speculative methods, there are subtle differences of meaning in ontology, e.g. xuanyuan (‘profound’), xuanjing (‘quiet’), and xuanmiao (‘mysterious’). The subtle meanings in the realm of ontology can be said to emerge from the Xueheng (“Critical Review”) Group, situated in the science-versus-metaphysics debate, and from abiding by the practice of ‘redeveloping the national quintessence and melting new knowledge’.
Based on the above-mentioned concern, this article attempts to distinguish between types of metaphysics. One way to proceed is to examine the dispute between sentiment and reason, an issue which was derived from the science and metaphysics debate. The other way is to discuss the challenges facing Tang Yongtong’s metaphysical paradigm and elaborate on issues concerning the passage of energy and the metaphysical subject and object. As such, it is hoped that this paper will demonstrate how Tang Yongtong's metaphysics can be inherited, revised and expanded in response to the ever-changing intellectual thoughts, thus deepening the discourse of Wei-Jin metaphysics.