| DC 欄位 |
值 |
語言 |
| DC.contributor | 哲學研究所 | zh_TW |
| DC.creator | 王鴻鵬 | zh_TW |
| DC.creator | Hong-Pon Wang | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2008-7-10T07:39:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2008-7-10T07:39:07Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw:88/thesis/view_etd.asp?URN=93124008 | |
| dc.contributor.department | 哲學研究所 | zh_TW |
| DC.description | 國立中央大學 | zh_TW |
| DC.description | National Central University | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | 在人生中，人不免追問「什麼是我能夠做的？」這個問題就是命的核心問題。當人在追問什麼是我能做的之時，通常是對於人生感到侷限，本文〈王充命論研究〉是由「什麼是我能夠做的？」作為思考的起點。
王充論命，主要由兩種命：受禀之命和時祿之命，禀受之命是天賦，時祿之命是運氣。王充由「氣－性－形」說明禀受之命的構成、作用與限制。由「盛衰」說明時祿之命的運氣變化好壞。
梳理王充論命的內部脈絡後，接著討論命的相關問題。從必然性與偶然性詮釋王充命論是否恰當？由必然與偶然詮釋王充是有爭議空間。王充對命的態度是什麼？在疾虛妄中是要人「莫以成敗得失論材德」，在個人上是要「盡命」。王充的兩種命的區分是否恰當？有明顯不恰當與模糊，命在後代的發展中，明確將命和運區分開來，王充的區分確實有著混淆的問題存在。
在處理完命的概念，筆者試圖去王充命論引起的一個外部批評，王充是否否定道德，筆者的結論是王充認為道德不是不可能的。王充在命論下的道德是一種「鳥籠道德」，人只能在命定的鳥籠中做道德行為。然而，要超脫「鳥籠」的束縛，必然轉向某種形式的宗教，這是王充所反對。使得王充是個現世的鳥籠道德者。但是王充盡命的觀點，使他的心境轉向恬適。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In our life we often asks a question, “ what is our limitations of doing”, the extent to which human being can implicate their action is beyond our control and this key questions of our possibility and limitations lead us to our dependency on Destiny(Ming). In this thesis I strongly put the role of Destiny in our life decisions and actions. What we can do is not always in our hand rather it is to an extent is also decided by our destiny. In this thesis through Wang Chung conception on Destiny I have tried to analyze this problem and hypothesis.
Wang Ch’ung in his exploration makes a difference between two kinds of Destinies one is given that is Innate and the other which decides by time is Luck. One side Wang used nature of Chi to explain this dichotomy of our life which is given (Innate). On the other side he used rise and fall of Luck to explain the destiny of Time.
Through Innate theory Wang discusses the external questions of our life. In this thesis I will be mainly focusing on the way Wang has treated the questions. Is it a correct approach to deal with this question of Destiny or to what extent his division of Destiny is applicable in the study of Destiny itself?
In my analysis and notion of Ming, I also discussed the relation between Ming and Moral. If the action of people is determined by Ming then is it possible to be Moral? On this condition Moral is possible or not? Generally scholars of Taiwan argues that in Wang conception the existence of Moral is impossible but contrary to this in this thesis I argues that in Wang conception of Destiny, the existence of Moral is not impossible. Moreover if existence of Moral is not impossible in Wang conception of Destiny; then the very existence of Moral should remained a birdcage under Destiny. But contrary to this he proposed that Moral need not to be a birdcage rather the Birdcage itself constituted of Moral. | en_US |
| DC.subject | 道德 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 王充 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 命 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | Moral | en_US |
| DC.subject | Wang Ch’ung | en_US |
| DC.subject | Destiny(Ming) | en_US |
| DC.title | 王充命論研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | zh-TW |
| DC.title | On Wang Ch’ung on Destiny(Ming) | en_US |
| DC.type | 博碩士論文 | zh_TW |
| DC.type | thesis | en_US |
| DC.publisher | National Central University | en_US |