| 摘要: | 本文的研究，論題是：「力動」與「體用」──吳汝鈞「力動論」哲學與熊十力「體用論」哲學的比較研究。依據個人的研究，吳氏「力動論」哲學和熊氏「體用論」哲學，在基本的思維架構上，確有諸多相近、相通之處，但也存在諸多或顯明、或隱微的思維差異，兩套哲學具有頗多理論對話的空間；再者，吳氏之建構「力動論」哲學，直接的是與其對熊氏「體用不二」論的檢討有關。總此以上，本文認為，援熊、吳兩家哲學進行參照、比較，既能使這兩家哲學相互發明，對準確評價這兩家哲學的思維貢獻，亦是極有幫助的，特別是對目前為止仍較少人鑽研的「力動論」哲學來說更是如此。
全文共計五章。第一章是「緒論」，包含「研究背景」的說明，還有「文獻回顧」。第二章集中分析吳氏建構的「力動論」哲學，前後以五節呈現，分別是：第一節，吳氏肇造「力動論」哲學的問題意識；第二節，吳氏對「純粹力動」的體性構想；第三節，吳氏對「力動宇宙論」的演述；第四節，吳氏對佛教「空」義與西方哲學中之「物自身」義的轉化；第五節，吳氏對「動場」的構想。第三章集中分析熊氏建構的「體用論」哲學，前後以四節呈現，分別是：第一節，熊氏對「宇宙本體」的體性構想；第二節，熊氏「體用論」哲學的宇宙論構設；第三節，熊氏「體用論」哲學對主體心靈與真實世界的構想；第四節，熊氏「體用論」哲學對「體用」關係論的發揮。第四章則在第二、三章的研究基礎上，比較熊、吳兩家哲學的整體建構，前後以五節呈現，分別是：第一節，比較兩家哲學對「終極原理」的體性構設；第二節，比較兩家哲學的宇宙論建構；第三節，比較兩家哲學中的兩層心靈與行動意義的「物自身」；第四節，比較兩家哲學對真實世界的構想；第五節，比較兩家哲學對「體用論」思維的看法。第五章則是「結論」，先歸納「力動論」哲學和「體用論」哲學整體而言的通同之處，再進一步說明其通同之處中的思維差異。在以上研究的基礎上，本文認為：吳氏對熊氏的「體用論」哲學確曾有過深入的探究，並在思維底蘊中受到熊氏哲學的影響，這表現為「力動論」哲學與「體用論」哲學的通同之處；但吳氏晚出，治學經歷又於東、西方之宗教、哲學理論多所涉獵，在造論工程中取資多方，加之以其對熊氏哲學的若干檢討，便總的展現為「力動論」哲學與「體用論」哲學的根本差異。最後，本文提出了吳氏建構「力動論」哲學的五點學術建樹，並提出四點對吳氏現有之造論成果的商榷，及未來可進一步完善其理論建構的期許。
;The topic of this paper is “Vitality” and “Substance and Function”--A comparative study of Ng Yu-Kwan’s “Vitality” and Hsiung Shih-li′s “Substance and Function”. The research found that Ng Yu-Kwan’s “Vitality” and Hsiung Shih-li’s “Substance and Function” indeed share similarities and connection in basic thinking structure, as well as obvious or implicit thinking differences. Theoretical dialogue exists between the two philosophies; furthermore, Ng Yu-Kwan’s “Vitality” is directly related to Hsiung Shih-li’s “no difference of substance and function”. In conclusion, this paper holds that the references and comparison of Hsiung’s and Ng’s philosophies can not only make the two philosophies perfect each other, but also help to accurately evaluate the contribution of the two philosophies, especially for “Vitality”, as it is still less studied so far.
The paper consists of five chapters. The first chapter is “Introduction”, including “research background” and “literature review”. The second chapter mainly analyzes Ng Yu-Kwan’s “Vitality” in five sections: the first section, Ng Yu-Kwan’s problem consciousness of creating “Vitality”; the second section, Ng Yu-Kwan’s physical conception of “Vitality”, the third section, Ng Yu-Kwan’s detailed description of “Vitality Theory of the Universe”, the fourth section, Ng Yu-Kwan’s transformation of “emptiness” in Buddhism and “thing-in-itself” in Western philosophy, the fifth section, Ng Yu-Kwan′s conception of “Act Field(Akt Feld)”. The third chapter analyzes Hsiung Shih-li’s “Substance and Function” in four sections: the first section, Hsiung Shih-li’s entity conception of “universe noumenon”, the second section, Hsiung Shih-li′s cosmology construction of “Substance and Function”, the third section, Hsiung Shih-li’s conception of the subject′s mind and the real world on the basis of his “Substance and Function”, the fourth section, how Hsiung Shih-li explained the relationship of “substance and function” via “Substance and Function”. The fourth chapter compares the overall construction of Hsiung and Ng’s philosophy on the basis of the previous two chapters in five sections: the first section compares the physical construction of the “ultimate principle” between the two philosophies, the second section compared the cosmological construction of the two philosophies; the third section compares the two layers of hearts and the action meaning of “thing-in-itself” in the two philosophies, the fourth section compares the two philosophies’ concepts of the real world, the fifth section compares the two philosophies’ views on “Substance and Function”. The fifth chapter is “conclusion”, summing up firstly the similarities between “Vitality” and “Substance and Function”, and then further explains thinking differences in their similarities. The paper holds on the basis of research that Ng Yu-Kwan indeed explored deeply Hsiung Shih-li’s “Substance and Function”, which exerts influence on him in terms of thinking. This is the similarity between “Vitality” and “Substance and Function”, Yet Ng Yu-Kwan was born late, and his academic experience is also involved in oriental and western religions, as well as philosophical theories. In other word, he drew on many aspects discussion, which together with discussions on Hsiung Shih-li’s philosophy, will generally present the fundamental difference between the two said philosophies. Finally, this paper puts forward five academic achievements of Ng Yu-Kwan’s “Vitality”, and four points of discussion on Ng Yu-Kwan’s existing theoretical achievements, as well as the expectation that his theoretical construction can improve further in the future. |
