荀子性朴论新诠——以“性朴”与“性璞”的区分为视角
|
摘要
学界关于荀子人性论的研究,当前多集中于性朴还是性恶的区分上,其实首先厘清"朴"字的含义显得更为重要。由于当代一些性朴论者常有意无意将"朴"混同于"璞",因此有必要作一区分。朴与璞是不同的,玉在璞中,寓意人性中本有善质;朴为雕饰之前木头的原初状态,寓意人性需经礼义的修饰而变善。前者之善来自于内在的善质,是孟子、董仲舒人性论的思路,可称为性璞论。而后者之善来自于外在的礼义,才是荀子人性论的模式,可称为性朴论。性朴即性恶,因为朴作为一种有待改进的原初状态,本身即含有粗恶、恶劣的意思。这两种人性论模式体现了孟学和荀学的本质区别,并对儒家思想的历史演进产生了深远影响。
Current academic studies on Xunzi's theory of human nature are focused on the distinction between unadorned human nature(xingpu) and evil human nature(xing'e). However, it is more important to clarify the meaning of pu, a concept that some scholars often confuse, intentionally or unintentionally, with pu as uncut jade. The uncut jade pu implies the basic goodness in human nature, yet pu as the uncarved wood implies that human nature needs modification with rite and morality to become good. The former goodness implied in the uncut jade is intrinsic, which is the thought of Mencius and Dong Zhongshu on human nature, and which we term the theory of human nature as uncut jade. In contrast, the goodness of the latter is to be acquired from rite and morality, which is advocated by Xunzi, and we call it the theory of unadorned human nature. Xunzi's theory is in fact the theory of evil human nature, for as an original state that needs to be modified, the unadorned human nature has a connotation of being rough, humble and evil. The two theories of human nature reflect the essential difference between the ideology of Mencius and that of Xunzi, and have had far-reaching influence on the evolution of Confucianism.
Current academic studies on Xunzi's theory of human nature are focused on the distinction between unadorned human nature(xingpu) and evil human nature(xing'e). However, it is more important to clarify the meaning of pu, a concept that some scholars often confuse, intentionally or unintentionally, with pu as uncut jade. The uncut jade pu implies the basic goodness in human nature, yet pu as the uncarved wood implies that human nature needs modification with rite and morality to become good. The former goodness implied in the uncut jade is intrinsic, which is the thought of Mencius and Dong Zhongshu on human nature, and which we term the theory of human nature as uncut jade. In contrast, the goodness of the latter is to be acquired from rite and morality, which is advocated by Xunzi, and we call it the theory of unadorned human nature. Xunzi's theory is in fact the theory of evil human nature, for as an original state that needs to be modified, the unadorned human nature has a connotation of being rough, humble and evil. The two theories of human nature reflect the essential difference between the ideology of Mencius and that of Xunzi, and have had far-reaching influence on the evolution of Confucianism.
引文
[1]牟宗三.荀学大略.牟宗三先生全集:第2册[M].台北:联经出版事业有限公司,2003.
[2]任鹏程.荀子性朴论的三种理论模式及其评述[J].临沂大学学报,2016,(5).
[3]周炽成.唐君毅、牟宗三、徐复观荀学研究略议——兼论荀子为性朴论者[J].宜宾学院学报,2015,(1).
[4]周炽成.性朴论与儒家教化政治——以荀子与董仲舒为例[J].广西大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2015,(1).
[5]周炽成.荀子人性论:性恶论,还是性朴论[J].江淮论坛,2016,(5).
[6]董仲舒,苏舆.春秋繁露义证[M].北京:中华书局,2002.
[7]陈大齐.孟子性善说与荀子性恶说的比较研究[M].台北:中央文物供应社,1953.
[8]许慎,段玉裁.说文解字注[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1981.
[9]荀况,王天海.荀子校释[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2005.
[10]林桂榛.荀子性朴论的理论结构及思想价值[J].邯郸学院学报,2012,(4).
[11]路德斌.荀子人性论:性朴、性恶与心之伪——试论荀子人性论之逻辑架构及理路[J].邯郸学院学报,2015,(1).
(1)传统儒家具有鲜明的种子主义思维,这或许与中国传统社会长期以农业生产为基础有关,详参陈立胜:《“良知”与“种子”:王阳明思想之中的植物隐喻》,《江苏行政学院学报》2005年第5期。
(2)为清楚起见,下文凡“樸”皆按今人习惯作“朴”。
(3)此处虽“善恶”连用,但下文又云:“长短大小,美恶形相,岂论也哉!”可见,“善恶”即“美恶”,此处不仅“恶”为“美恶”之“恶”,连“善”也变成“美”的同义词,而非“善恶”之“善”了。
(4)关于荀子之恶为美恶之恶与善恶之恶的区别,参见日本学者桥本敬司《荀子思想研究——天人論と性説》,《广岛大学大学院文学研究科论集》第七〇卷特辑号(2010年10月),第57-58页。
[2]任鹏程.荀子性朴论的三种理论模式及其评述[J].临沂大学学报,2016,(5).
[3]周炽成.唐君毅、牟宗三、徐复观荀学研究略议——兼论荀子为性朴论者[J].宜宾学院学报,2015,(1).
[4]周炽成.性朴论与儒家教化政治——以荀子与董仲舒为例[J].广西大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2015,(1).
[5]周炽成.荀子人性论:性恶论,还是性朴论[J].江淮论坛,2016,(5).
[6]董仲舒,苏舆.春秋繁露义证[M].北京:中华书局,2002.
[7]陈大齐.孟子性善说与荀子性恶说的比较研究[M].台北:中央文物供应社,1953.
[8]许慎,段玉裁.说文解字注[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1981.
[9]荀况,王天海.荀子校释[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2005.
[10]林桂榛.荀子性朴论的理论结构及思想价值[J].邯郸学院学报,2012,(4).
[11]路德斌.荀子人性论:性朴、性恶与心之伪——试论荀子人性论之逻辑架构及理路[J].邯郸学院学报,2015,(1).
(1)传统儒家具有鲜明的种子主义思维,这或许与中国传统社会长期以农业生产为基础有关,详参陈立胜:《“良知”与“种子”:王阳明思想之中的植物隐喻》,《江苏行政学院学报》2005年第5期。
(2)为清楚起见,下文凡“樸”皆按今人习惯作“朴”。
(3)此处虽“善恶”连用,但下文又云:“长短大小,美恶形相,岂论也哉!”可见,“善恶”即“美恶”,此处不仅“恶”为“美恶”之“恶”,连“善”也变成“美”的同义词,而非“善恶”之“善”了。
(4)关于荀子之恶为美恶之恶与善恶之恶的区别,参见日本学者桥本敬司《荀子思想研究——天人論と性説》,《广岛大学大学院文学研究科论集》第七〇卷特辑号(2010年10月),第57-58页。