Items with full text/Total items : 67783/67783 (100%)
Visitors : 23045362
Online Users : 211
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||當代伊川哲學研究之爭議與出路—重新釐清牟宗三批判伊川哲學的合理性;Contemporary Debate Concerning Chen Yi′s Philosophy and its Solution: Reevaluating Mou Tsung-san′s Critique of Chen Yi′s Philosophy|
|Keywords: ||伊川;牟宗三;唐君毅;逆覺體證;Chen Yi;Mou Tsung-san;Tang Jun-yi;ni-chüeh-t′i-cheng|
|Issue Date: ||2016-10-13 13:48:37 (UTC+8)|
;The problematic of this thesis has a macro and a micro aspect. The former is a response to the contemporary controversy of Cheng Yi-Chuan and the latter is upon the renowned Neo-Confucian Professor Mou Tsung-san’s explication of Cheng’s philosophy. Mou points out that in the philosophy of Cheng Yi-Chuan, Li (reason) has no activity and xin-xing-qing is a triad division with the xin and qing belong to the phenomenon and xing belongs to the metaphysical world. While the equally renowned contemporary Neo-Confucian Professor Tang Chun-I seems to assert that Cheng’s Li is active and that xin-xing-qing is one. Both interpretations have supporters while some of those following Tang’s line of explications have up to now not subjected to criticism, and some of them think that the two could not be reconciled.
Mou draws his conclusion because there is some fundamental flaws in Cheng’s method of moral cultivation. My point is precisely that Mou realizes this problem in Cheng’s philosophy and is certain that for Cheng Li is inactive, Li and Chi are separated and so is xin and xing. Hence, I suggest that (1) traditional interpretations of Cheng’s philosophy starting with the theory of Li and Chi and then construct his ideas of xin and xing is inappropriate. Instead, I begin with his theory of moral cultivation. And (2), that though Mou’s and Tang’s interpretations seem to be different but in fact could be compatible.
Professor Mou points out that the method of moral cultivation for orthodox Confucianism is ni-chüeh t′i-cheng (逆覺體證), while Cheng’s is ge-wu qiong-li(格物窮理). The former could while the latter could not prove that xin and xing is oneness. Tang’s interpretation emphasizes upon the double-aspect of xin in its unity of xing and qing. However, his does not assert that the two are oneness. His interpretation must not be confused with Tu Bo-rui or Lau Lok-heng. Both of Mou and Tang’s interpretations are more in unity with Cheng’s writings.
|Appears in Collections:||[哲學研究所] 博碩士論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期：8-24-2009 :::