| 摘要: | 孔子的《論語〕與老子的《老子》之思想的繼承來自周文明。然而，同一時代孔子的《論語〕與老子的《老子》所對「道德禮治」之概念蘊涵諸多分歧。從《老子‧十九章》提論的「絕仁棄義，民復孝慈，絕聖去知，民利百倍。」顯見，孔子與老子歧義處，其關鍵所在是孔子的「始制有名」，其在人類進化中聖人與人之間之需；另老子的「散樸為器」指形上之道有二義，落在人間有教化、規範之提供的；但不能「知止」、「大制不割」，則將違反自然大道，墜入危機。故老子由「名言」批評到「仁義」，主因係洞見到人心充滿著對於名器的執著，因而轉向「大道廢，有仁義」（《老子‧十八章》）的諷刺，即對「道德禮治」的否定。
事實上，「道德禮治」概念是個複合辭，在歷代古籍原典中未見，僅見「道」、「德」、「禮」、「治」等單字註解，並出現在《論語》、《老子》主要著作，以及古籍《周易》、《詩經》、《尚書》等有關記載周文明歷史的相關史料中，可資後學者研究，此路徑係先從個別單字中去理解與詮釋「道」、「德」、「禮」、「治」等觀念，並予聯結與建構成一個「道德禮治」的大體系之豐富意涵。本文主要是從當代學者為代表的新儒家例如牟宗三、唐君毅和徐復觀等三人，相較於非新儒家的馮友蘭、方東美、胡適等三人所持不同概念的詮釋，再比較各家的異同予以詮釋與理解，從比較「道」、「德」、「禮」、「治」的分化歧義處，最後聯結「道德禮治」的整體性意涵為之詮釋與分化比較，有了根源性的新發現。因為《論語》與《老子》思想的歧義處，即《老子‧三十八章》：「夫禮者，忠信之薄，亂之首也。」成為孔、老思想分化所在。研究者為梳理孔子與老子對「道德禮治」觀點之系統化建構，以「道」、「德」、「禮」、「治」等單字詮釋，作為本論文的鋪陳重點與比較研究之初探與嘗試。本文以結論作終結，綜述孔子與老子對於「道德禮治」的異同，以及孔、老對於當代文化思想的貢獻。同時，進一步指陳並檢討本文研究的限制，以茲日後研究發展方向探討的可能性。
The thought in the Confucian Analects and Laotse’s Dao De Jing originated with Zhou culture. However, there are many discrepancies between the two when it comes to understanding morality and the rule by proprieties. This is obvious from such passages as Chapter 19 in the Dao De Jing that reads: “Eliminate benevolence 〈仁〉and get rid of righteousness〈義〉 and people will return to filial piety 〈孝〉and parental affection.〈慈〉Eliminate wisdom〈聖〉and get rid of knowledge 〈知〉and the benefit to the people will be a hundredfold.” Creature came to be with orders birth by Confucius who saw the need for names in the interaction between the people and sage leader, while Laotse came to Dao and the Master himself does not carve that need for the simplicity of no names gives two meanings of the metaphysical Dao. Education and standards could cause more harm than good according to Laotse, as they go contrary to the Dao. This is why Laotse criticizes Confucius’ ideas of humanity and righteousness, as they are names connote an inflexible approach. Laotse offers the insight “when the Dao is in decline then there is a need for benevolence and righteousness,” which is a biting rebuke of the Confucian Morality and Rule by Proprieties.
The concept of rule of propriety is a compound noun, not seen in ancient classic texts. We see commentaries on the separate concepts, Dao, De, Li, Zhi that make up the compound concept. These commentaries can be seen in classics such as the Analects, the Dao De Jing, Book of Zhou, the Book of Poems and the Book of History that subsequent scholars used for reference. These concepts were then taken collectively to form a new idea of “rule by proprieties.” This thesis looks at the thought of three Neo-Confucian thinkers Mou Zong-san, Tang Jun-yi and Xu Fu-guan as well as three non Neo-Confucian thinkers, Feng You-lan, Fang Dong-mei and Hu Shi in conducting a comparative analysis and interpretation of modern-day proponents and detractors of the rule by proprieties. It also offers a new discovery of the possible source of the difference between Laotse and Confucius’ thought in chapter 38 of the Dao De Jing: “Propriety is the thinnest veneer of loyalty and honesty and the first sign of trouble.” I look at the later systemization of Dao〈道〉, De〈德〉, Li〈禮〉 and Zhi 〈治〉as a major point of the thesis as well as an initial attempt to form a comprehensive comparative study. In conclusion, I offer a final look at the similarities and differences of what the rule of propriety could have meant to Laotse and Confucius as well as the contribution the two thinkers’ philosophy have made to modern culture. I also offer simultaneously a look at the limitations of the thesis and offer possible direction for further research. |
