:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:Two Peoples Separated by a Common Language: Friend or Foe in Sun Tzu's The Art of War
書刊名:國立政治大學歷史學報
作者:朱文章
作者(外文):Chu, Wen-jang
出版日期:2013
卷期:39
頁次:頁1-24
主題關鍵詞:孫子孫子兵法李零Sun TzuThe Art of WarPeopleEnemyLi Ling
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:27
閱讀孫子兵法,讀者多半將內容中的「人」與「民」解讀為「我方人馬」。這兩個字相關字眼如國民、敵人,也明白易曉,不難解讀。但學者李零認為:孫子某些篇章,此二字單獨使用時有特殊涵義,他並將「人」與「民」分別解讀為「敵人」與「我方人馬」。李零是指出此二字在孫子兵法中有不同意義的唯一學者,如此帶領了我們了解孫子其實想在兵法中表達的微妙意圖。但此舉明顯地扭轉了兵法宗旨,甚至將此經典變成另類兵法,在其中「將」者所欲對付的對象變成了自己的人馬,而非敵人。李零將「人」與「民」二字做更精細定義,以此研究孫子兵法所牽涉的敵我,想法固然有趣,但我人也應對此二字有正確了解,以確保孫子學說真諦。既然兵者國之大事,孫子處理這兩個字定然不致草率,所以,假定他故意含糊其辭以誤導讀者,此說得失極大,因此我人認為有必要檢視李零說法是否正確,本論文將首先說明李零見人所未見的觀點,其次則檢討其說對中國戰略思維的誤導。
For the most part, readers tend to accept Sun Tzu's uses of 'ren' (人) and 'min' (民) to refer to 'our men.' These two words are self-explanatory and straightforward. However, there are occasions in which Sun Tzu seems to use 'ren' and 'min' differently when the word is used singly, especially when he uses these two words one by one in the same paragraph. Li Ling claims that 'ren' refers to 'the enemy' while 'min' refers to 'our men.' Li Ling is the only scholar who claims Sun Tzu purposely differentiated between the uses of these terms, and leads us to a new understanding of the nuances Sun Tzu may wish to express when he purposely chooses these two different words in a single sentence. In so doing, however, he also twists the main theme of this masterpiece and transforms it into the art of another war in which a general fights against his own people instead of his enemy. It is interesting to read Sun Tzu through Li's lens which shows that friend and foe are more rigidly defined, but we must differentiate between the two terms to ensure we know what Sun Tzu really tries to convey. The lack of mutual understanding of the meaning of 'min' and 'ren' has significant consequences for interpreters and readers alike, for, if warfare is a matter of life and death, Sun Tzu would not have been so careless with his use of these important terms. It is a huge risk to assume he does it purposely and intends to mislead his readers; therefore, it is worthwhile to find out if Li is correct in his assumption about these two terms. This paper intends to explain firstly how Li retrieves the claimed nuances Sun Tzu would wish to express, and secondly to study the misleading relevance of Sun Tzu in Chinese strategic thinking.
學位論文
1.Byrne, Rebecca Zerby(1974)。Harmony and Violence in Classical China: A Study of the Battle of the Tso-Chuan(博士論文)。University of Chicago,Chicago。  new window
圖書
1.Ames, Roger T.(1993)。Sun-Tzu: The Art of Warfare。Ballantine Books。  new window
2.Ames, Roger T.(1996)。The Classic Chinese Self and Hypocrisy。Self and Deception。Albany:State University of New York Press。  new window
3.Gruen, Erich S.(2011)。Rethinking the other in Antiquity。Princeton University Press。  new window
4.Hall, David L.、Ames, Roger T.(1995)。Anticipating China。Albany:State University of New York Press。  new window
5.Hsiao, Kung-chuan、Mote, F. W.(1979)。A History of Chinese Political Thought, Volume One: From the Beginnings to the Sixth Century A.D.。Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press。  new window
6.Pines, Yuri(2009)。Envisioning Eternal Empire。Honolulu:University of Hawaii。  new window
7.Yates, Robin D. S.(1999)。Early China。War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: Asia, the Mediterranean, and Mesoamerica。Cambridge:Center for Hellenic Studies。  new window
8.王先謙注(1986)。荀子。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
9.李零(2010)。唯一的規則:孫子的鬥爭哲學。香港:中文大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
10.李零(2007)。孫子譯注。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
11.李零(2007)。兵以詐立:我讀《孫子》。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
12.高佑(1986)。吕氏春秋。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
13.徐秀榮(1980)。老子釋譯。臺北:里仁書店。  延伸查詢new window
14.焦循(1986)。孟子正義。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
15.孫怡讓(1986)。墨子閒詁。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
16.劉寶楠(1986)。論語正義。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
17.戴望(1986)。管子校正。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
18.嚴可均(1986)。商君書。上海:新華書店。  延伸查詢new window
19.Tzu, Sun、Griffith, S. B.(1963)。The Art of War。Oxford:Oxford University Press。  new window
20.朱駿聲(1977)。尚書古注便讀。臺北:廣文書局。  延伸查詢new window
21.劉向、王瑛、王天海(1996)。說苑。臺北市:台灣古籍出版社。  延伸查詢new window
22.莊周、郭慶藩、王孝魚(1986)。莊子集釋。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
23.Ames, Roger T.、Rosemont, Henry Jr.、Confucius(1998)。The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation。Ballantine Books。  new window
24.Ames, Roger T.(1983)。The Art Of Rulership: A Study In Ancient Chinese Political Thought。Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press。  new window
25.許倬雲(2009)。我者與他者:中國歷史上的內外分際。臺北:時報文化公司。  延伸查詢new window
26.Hall, David L.、Ames, Roger T.(1987)。Thinking Through Confucius。State University of New York Press。  new window
27.Munro, Donald J.(1969)。The Concept of Man in Early China。Stanford, California:Stanford University Press。  new window
28.Ames, Roger T.(2011)。Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary。Chinese University Press。  new window
29.魏汝霖(1984)。孫子今註今譯。台北市:台灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE