本篇文章對於天主教哲學家馬里旦的美學與中國文人畫論的比較與會通，主要是放在美與善 （藝術與道德）的關係上面來探討。由此觀點切入，我們可以看見馬里旦美學與中國文人畫論最 大的相異之處，即在於馬里旦視藝術與道德為彼此各自獨立的領域，而中國的文人藝術家則否。 這個差異立即地表現在藝術的品評上，馬里旦強調「藝術可以獲益於任何事物，甚至是『罪』。」 中國的文人藝術家卻直接將藝術家的學問與修養視為決定文人畫價值高低的關鍵，為此，他們不 強調繪畫技巧，不執著於形似，卻要求藝術家以自身的修養將所見之物象提升、凝煉，以使繪畫 成為表達畫家「胸中逸氣」的一個途徑。除了差異之外，馬里旦美學與中國文人畫論亦有相通之處。馬里旦雖然主張藝術與道德領域 的各自獨立，但在其有關創作的理論中，他也表明了，在精神的前意識背景之下，藝術家的藝術 與他的道德修養有著相通之處，正是在產生創造性直覺的根源性經驗中，藝術家的所有主體能力、 他的美與善都融合在一起了。據此，他強調，美善若有衝突，當改變的不是藝術家的作品，而是 藝術家自身，因為只有當藝術家淨化了他精神的泉源，在創造性直覺的產出中，美善才能無間地 融合在一起。他關於創造性直覺、精神前意識的描述，適當地把在藝術家之內發生的主客融合、 主體諸能力與其全部存有（包含了他的一切、他的藝術、他的道德修養等）的投入表達了出來， 這樣的理論架構正適於我們用以闡明中國文人繪畫強調畫家將其修養、學問與藝術結合在一起的 可能過程。這部分正是本文主要的論述重點。 另外值得一提的是，中國文人藝術理論傾向於將藝術與道德結合在一起，常常在藝術與道德 的交會點上發話，造就了獨樹一格的藝術表現。然而，較之於西方人對於藝術獨立領域的強調， 便突顯出了中國文人藝術在取向上的侷限。對於此事，筆者曾有一段時間甚為掛懷，這兩年漸漸 有了一些體會，也將藉著這篇論文與美學同好者分享。

This paper attempts to draw a comparison between the artistic theories of catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain and Chinese literati painting on the basis of how they view the relationship between beauty and goodness. From this perspective, the main difference, we may say, is that Maritain believes artistic and moral value to belong to two distinct realms, while the Chinese artist insists his art to be tightly bound to his own moral integrity. As a result, Maritain emphasizes that art in its own realm can even “avail itself of anything, even of sin”, whereas the Chinese painter regards his cultivation and moral integrity the key to achieving value in his work. And due to this, the Chinese painter does not stress his painting skill or the exact likeness of the object he paints, which for him is no more than a means to express the “idleness (or leisure) in his chest”--his tranquility in spirituality. However, although Maritain claims that art and morality belong to different domains, he also points out that in the milieu of the artist’s “pre-consciousness”, where his creative intuition emerges, all of his capacities, powers, desires and his being are fused together. Consequently, “pre-consciousness” is also the place where the art and moral integrity of the artist converge. On these grounds, if art and morality contradict one another in the artist, Maritain would reply, “the only solution for such an artist is to change, not his work (as long as he remains what he is), but himself.” Because only if the artist’s spiritual source is purified then can beauty and goodness achieve their union intact. Maritain’s theory concerning the creative process of the artist allows us to illustrate the possible link between art and morality in the Chinese painter and as well helps us to show how the union of art and morality comes to fruition. There is another point that deserves to be mentioned here: on the one hand, Chinese literati painting theory develops its unique artistic style because it always stands on the intersection of art and morality; on the other hand, this characteristic seems to somehow limit the Chinese artist to fully explore art without morality. There was a time when I was quite concerned about this limitation, but recently have begun to see it in a different light, and will be glad to share my thoughts at the conclusion of this paper.