唐、牟二先生對朱子理氣心性說之詮釋的考察

Investigation of Tang Chun-yi and Mou Tsung-san’s Annotations on Zhuzi’s Theory of Li, Qi, Mind and Human Nature

朱子是南宋時期儒家哲學的代表人物之一，其後數百年的「朱子學」研究也累積了頗為可觀的成果，唯對朱子哲學的整體理解與定位，頭緒多端之中也頗有評價不一的情況。以當代新儒家陣營的兩大舵手──牟宗三及唐君毅二位先生的朱子研究來說，正開出兩種迥然互異的面貌，值得識者加以比較，以求自朱子哲學的整體建構中，抽繹出某些重要且極具詮釋空間的問題關鍵，並開出研究朱子哲學或可嘗試的較為細膩或新穎的視角。基於此種認識，本文針對唐、牟二先生對朱子哲學的詮釋，進行了一番述要與反省，依次分就二位先生對朱子「理氣說」、「心性說」與兩組成德工夫──「涵養」與「察識」、「格物」與「致知」的詮釋與評價，進行了述要與簡評。本文以為，整體而言，牟先生的朱子詮釋，是以其心目中認定為理想儒家成德之教的型態，肯定宋明儒「心性（天）」合一的「心學」思路，進而對朱子哲學在表詮上必「心」、「性」分說的思路加以檢討，故多發為否定的、批判的話語；而唐先生的朱子詮釋則未預立義理評價的判准，整體呈現較為持平，對朱子哲學也較多同情的理解與申補性質的發揮，並不吝予以肯定。而通過此種比觀唐、牟二先生之朱子研究的工作，本文也認為，不僅在朱子哲學的研究方面仍多有可以深入探討、辯證的課題，在儒家哲學方面亦然──特別是在成德之教如何可謂圓滿，又成德之教的圓滿如何可能……等問題上面。

Zhuzi is one of typical representatives of Confucian Philosophy in the South Song Dynasty; thereafter, researches on “ Zhuzi Doctrine ＂ exhibit considerable achievements through centuries of accumulation. However, there’re many diversified comments on overall comprehension and position of Zhuzi's philosophy. For instance, two major leaders of contemporary New Confucianism- Mou Tsung-San and Tang Chun-Yi’s researches on Zhuzi are presenting two entirely different standpoints. It’s worthy to compare the two, thus to extract some important and explainable points from overall construct of Zhuzi's philosophy and develop some exquisite or novel viewpoints of Zhuzi's philosophy. Based on such cognition, this study summarizes and reflects on Tang and Mou’s annotations of Zhuzi philosophy as well as elaborates and comments on their interpretations and evaluations of Zhuzi’s “theory of li-qi＂, “theory of mind and human nature＂and two groups of “efforts to cultivation of virtues＂- “cultivation＂and“review＂and“investigating things (Gewu)＂and“extending knowledge (Zhizhi)＂.This paper holds a viewpoint that Mou considers Zhuzi doctrine as an ideal pattern of Confucian teaching of cultivation of virtues, affirms Song-Ming Confucians’ idea of “integrating mind with nature＂, and criticizes the concept of “separating mind from nature＂in Zhuzi’s philosophy. Therefore, Mou’s discourse is mostly negative and critical. On the contrary, Tang doesn’t preset judgment criteria when interpreting Zhuzi doctorine and his overall attitude is neutral. Concerning Zhuzi’s philosophy, he presents sympathetic comprehension and supplementary exertion and liberally offers affirmation. Through comparing Tang and Mou’s researches on Zhuzi, this paper believes there’re many discussible and dialectical issues about not only study of Zhuzi’s philosophy but also Confucian philosophy, especially topics such as what is perfect teaching of cultivation of virtues and how to achieve such teaching.