即「氣質」以言性善──明末清初「性善圖」釐析

Explaining Human’s Goodness by“Qizhi”─Analyzing“The Diagram of Goodness of Human Nature”During the Late Ming and Early Qing

明末清初之際，儒學思想經歷了翻轉性的改變，其中對人性論觀點的調整之特點在於由肯認「氣質」為善的角度重述「性善」論的觀點，因此，本研究特別留意到他們不約而同地採用「圖象」的方式來闡發這一論點，可謂是「以圖論理」的一個精彩案例。是以，本文以清代學者陸世儀的《性善圖說》為起點，說明他如何透過修訂周敦頤的〈太極圖〉，為五幅「性善論」圖式，以表明「人性之善，正在氣質」。陸氏的說法，深獲顏元的稱許，於是顏氏亦著有七幅〈性圖〉，主張氣質、情、才皆善，且對於萬化的多元與豐富有更多的關注，強調「惡」的由來出乎「引蔽習染」而不可歸罪於「氣質」。又從陸世儀往前溯，也可發現兩幅「性善論」的圖象作品，即陳確的〈性習圖〉與孫慎行的〈性善圖〉。前者，同樣主張「性善」是關聯著氣、情、才皆善而言的，後者，則通過黑白圈的圖示來比較孟子的性善、告子的無分善惡，以及宋儒「性即理」說的觀點，來突顯當從「氣善」來闡明「性善」的觀點。最後，本研究推測彼等四人之所以要採用「以圖論理」這一獨特的方式來重申性善論，其原因在於他們亟欲從宋儒的「氣質之性」與明儒的「無善無惡」之說中突圍而出，故試圖透過圖象的方式來發揮一種新的論述觀點。

This essay starts from analyzing Lu Shiyi’s work“The Diagram of Goodness of Human Nature”. The scholar of Ming Dynasty advocates to explain human’s goodness by physical nature (qizhi). His point of view has strongly agreed by another scholar Yen Yuan in Qing Dynasty, who follows the statement and then writes the book“cun xing bian”himself. Even further, he argues that“emotion”and“ability”are also good, and he pays more attention to the diversity of human nature. They even emphasize that the source of evil lies in the learning and habits acquired after birth, and cannot be attributed to physical nature. And if we review in the late Ming Dynasty, we can find the same approval by Chen Que and Sun Shen Hsing, who also use diagrams to state their points of view. Chen Que, a Song dynasty Confucian scholar, illustrated the phase“Nature is similar, but habits are different”from the Analects to explain that“innate goodness”is evident in the goodness of qi, qing, and cai. And Sun Shenxing’s“Diagram of Innate Goodness”uses black and white circles to compare the views of Mencius, Gaozi, and Song dynasty Confucians. Sun argues that only the goodness of“innate disposition”can be the foundation of“Innate Goodness”. In this period, the academic circle has shown interest to the unique view of“Doctrine of Human Nature”but without paying attention to the expression of diagram, which can be seen as a breakthrough in available theories. In my opinion, when the words are not enough to describe a new point, scholars try another way to express it. Finally, based on the above results, this study can be considered a fine example of the“using diagrams to discuss principle”model.