| 摘要: | 在中國傳統上，「經典」具有絕對的優先性，歷來學者皆從經典出發，透過注疏工作的進行，開顯出經典的意義。本論文由經典的優先性出發，清楚界定「經典」與「詮釋者」之間的主從關係為──「經典」為主、「詮釋者」為從，並自哲學詮釋學的視角，以呂格爾語義學路徑的詮釋學理論為基礎，藉由呂格爾定義下的象徵的多義性質、隱喻的作用、語境在詮釋時的重要性等，探究《易經》意義開顯背後的理論基礎與詮釋方式，歸結出詮釋者在進行《易經》詮釋時的三個進程。
本論文以上述的詮釋理論為基礎，對王弼《周易注》進行逐句說解，審視王弼《周易注》對《易經》意義的開顯進程、《周易注》所呈現出的意義內涵，並在思想史脈絡中破除了傳統上認為王弼「援老入易」的合理性──本論文以嚴格的方式審視此說，探究王弼是否將「援老入易」視為其解《易經》時的原則性方法？本論文最終指出，王弼以回歸《易傳》解經模式的方式，開顯出面對《易經》時屬於王弼的「《易經》的意義」。當中詮釋的偏重點在面對卦象時人事的應世或個人的自處，儒、道、《易傳》的相關觀念及語彙在《周易注》中乃為王弼為了解通《易經》這本卜筮之書時的工具性援用。王弼在社會意義的層面使用了儒、道、《易傳》之概念與語彙，而非站在哲學的高度，將相關觀念視為解《易》時貫穿全書的問題意識，亦未對各家理論進行系統性的闡發。故統觀《周易注》，我們無法因此將王弼納入任一家派，也無法藉《周易注》而將其視為一具有核心問題意識的哲學家，王弼注《易》乃是以一名經典詮釋者的立場出發，開顯出其面對《易經》時的「不同的理解」。
;In Chinese traditional studies, the classics have an absolute priority in interpretation. Scholars have been using the classics as the basis for their interpretation and they have begun to interpret them through their annotations to uncover their meaning. The focus of the dissertation was on the precedence of the classics. First, it clearly defined the relationship between the "classic" and the "interpreter" -the "classic" as primary and the "interpreter" as a subsidiary. Secondly, from the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics, based on the hermeneutic theory of Ricoeur′s semantic path, it studied and analyzed how to explore and interpret the contents and meanings of the Yijing through the important factors defined by Ricoeur, such as "the multiple meanings of symbols", "the role of metaphors", and "the importance of context in interpretation". The dissertation explored the theoretical foundations and interpretative approaches behind the interpretation of the Yijing, and finally summarized the three phases of the interpreter′s approach to the interpretation of the Yijing.
Based on the above-mentioned interpretive theories, the dissertation explained Wang Bi′s Zhou Yi Zhu, sentence by sentence, and examines the methodology and process of interpreting the meaning of the Yijing in Wang Bi′s Zhou Yi Zhu, as well as the true meaning of the Zhou Yi Zhu as it is presented. In the context of intellectual history, the dissertation reviewed and challenged the rationality of the traditional belief that Wang Bi’s "Invoking the ideas of Lao Tzu into the interpretation of Yijing". It critically reviewed this statement to examine whether Wang Bi took the principle approach of "Invoking the ideas of Lao Tzu into the interpretation of Yijing" in Zhou Yi Zhu. Finally, it was indicated that Wang Bi adopted a mode of reverting to the interpretation of Yi Zhuan, interpreting a whole series of Yijing that belongs to Wang Bi himself. The main focus of his interpretation was on the personal treatment of people and the individual′s self-knowledge of the world. The concepts and vocabulary of Confucianism, Taoism, and Yi Zhuan were only used as a tool for the interpretation of Yijing. He used them in a socially meaningful way, but did not take the relevant concepts as the problematic consciousness of the whole book in interpreting Yijing from a philosophical perspective, nor did he make a systematic discussion of the theories of each school. After a comprehensive look at the book Zhou Yi Zhu, it was impossible to place Wang Bi in any academic school or to consider him as a philosopher with awareness of core issues. The results revealed that it is impossible to categorize Wang Bi into any school of thought or to consider him as a philosopher with a central problematical consciousness through his Zhou Yi Zhu. One conclusion was that his interpretation of the Yijing was based on the perspective of an interpreter of the classics, interpreting his "Andersverstehen (different understanding)" of the Yijing. |
