:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:王弼聖人有情說與儒、道、玄思想之關涉與分判
書刊名:國文學報
作者:吳冠宏 引用關係
作者(外文):Wu, Kuan-hung
出版日期:2007
卷期:42
頁次:頁55-86
主題關鍵詞:儒道思想玄學聖人有情說王弼ConfucianismChinese metaphysicsDiscourse on sainthood with affectionWang Bi
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(2) 博士論文(3) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:92
  • 點閱點閱:86
針對當代「以儒、道思想為依判的思想論題」來詮釋王弼聖人有情說的諸多意見,本文將之權分為五種類型:(一)近於儒家(二)近於道家、(三)道家之修正、(四)正宗之道家、(五)兼綜儒道,並逐一檢討反省其得失。 以儒、道思想為依判來定位王說,皆存在著將王說消融於儒、道思想之體系與脈絡的限制,因此本文主張有必要回歸玄在理路以作為重新論述王說的基礎。由是依「何、王二說與何、王玄學之連結」、「從情之有無的爭議至有無關係之玄論的轉向」、「立足於聖人位階的玄論發用」三個面向來進行討論,重新置於「有」、「無」之關係史來界定王弼的聖人有情說,使之植根於本體論的位階,立足於聖人論的格局,以突顯王說於玄學發展中承轉啟迪的角色與地位。 經由儒、道、玄思想的檢視,王弼之聖人有情說在縱的承轉面向上,不僅可以掌握其迥異於儒家與道家的特質,並回應何晏、王弼。
Contemporary studies on Wang Bi’s shengren youqingshuo (discourse on “sainthood with affection”) have been based on Confucianism and/or Taoism. This study will classify them into five types with respect to their interpretive stance and review each of them: (1) near-Confucian; (2) near-Taoist; (3) modified by Taoism; (4) mainstream Taoist; and (5) a synthesis of Confucian-Taoist views. The studies on Wang Bi’s discourse that are based on Confucianism and/or Taoism inevitably reappropriate Wang’s discourse in a Confucian and/or Taoist intellectual framework. As such, they have their limitations. This paper contends that Wang’s discourse needs to be reconsidered in the context of metaphysical thinking. In order to approach this topic, this article will examine three particular issues: (1) links between Ho Yen and Wang Bi’s theories and their metaphysics; (2) the metaphysical turn from the controversy over having or not having “affection” (qing) to the relationship between them; and (3) the metaphysical underpinning of sainthood. By so doing, this study aims to reconsider the relationship between having (you) and not having (wu) and to resituate Wang Bi’s discourse firmly in an ontology, thus highlighting its role and significance in the development of Chinese metaphysics. By bringing Confucian, Taoist, and metaphysical perspectives into discussion, this study offers some diachronic sight into Wang Bi’s discourse as it delineates what makes Wang Bi’s discourse different from Confucianism and Taoism, and it traces the metaphysical developments of Ho Yen, Wang Bi, and Xiang Kuo. This study also offers some synchronic insight into the relationship between the ultimate status of sainthood and the intellectual’s character.
期刊論文
1.周大興(19990600)。何晏玄學新論。鵝湖學誌,22,41-75。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.蘇新鋈(19730000)。試論何晏聖人無喜怒哀樂說之真義。南洋大學學報,7(1),84-99。  延伸查詢new window
3.曾春海(19890900)。王弼聖人有情無情論初探。哲學與文化,16(9)=184,32-39。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.周大興(20000300)。王弼「性其情」的人性遠近論。中國文哲研究集刊,16,339-373。new window  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.莊耀郎(1991)。王弼玄學(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.吳冠宏(1997)。魏晉玄論與士風新探--以「情」為綰合及詮釋進路(博士論文)。國立臺灣大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.余英時(1980)。中國知識階層史論。臺北:聯經出版事業公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.呂凱(1980)。魏晉玄學析評。臺北:世紀書局。  延伸查詢new window
3.錢穆(1985)。中國思想史。臺北:臺灣學生書局:時報出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.劉義慶、劉孝標、余嘉錫(2002)。世說新語箋疏。臺北:華正書局。  延伸查詢new window
5.馮友蘭(1995)。新原道。台北:台灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
6.賀昌群(1995)。魏晉清談思想初論。台北:里仁書局。  延伸查詢new window
7.王曉毅(2003)。儒釋道與魏晉玄學形成。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
8.任繼愈、孔繁(1998)。中國哲學發展史。北京:人民出版社。  延伸查詢new window
9.周紹賢(1966)。魏晉清談述論。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。  延伸查詢new window
10.牟宗三(2002)。才性與玄理。台北:臺灣學生書局。  延伸查詢new window
11.余敦康(2004)。魏晉玄學史。北京:北京大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
12.羅宗強(1992)。玄學與魏晉士人心態。文史哲出版社。  延伸查詢new window
13.王葆玹(1996)。玄學通論。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
14.林麗真(1988)。王弼。臺北市:東大圖書股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
15.王弼、樓宇烈(1992)。王弼集校釋。華正書局。  延伸查詢new window
16.牟宗三(1985)。圓善論。臺灣學生書局。  延伸查詢new window
17.袁濟喜(1999)。六朝美學。北京:北京大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
18.王葆玹(1987)。正始玄學。齊魯書社。  延伸查詢new window
19.魯迅(1995)。魏晉玄學乙編三種。魏晉玄學乙編三種。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
20.馮友蘭(1995)。新世訓。新世訓。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
21.田文軍(1990)。馮友蘭與新理學。馮友蘭與新理學。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(晉)陳壽(2004)。三國志,北京。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE