| 摘要: | 由於現代人文學科跟隨科學研究方法，所以研究《老子》的學者都使用懷疑的眼光來看待傳統的說法。舉例來說馬王堆帛書本反映通行本的架構，王弼的注解，還有司馬遷的記錄，但是一九九三年發現的郭店竹簡本則引發很多研究《老子》的問題。 因為竹簡只有大約兩千字，章節大多不合通行本， 內容沒有確定的架構，某些楚國文字的形狀和意義不明確，所以大多現代學者懷疑《老子》是一個人而寫的。很多學者都認為《老子》的內容來自很多不同的來源，也說不定包含一個完整的思想系統。
本人認為除非學術世界有具體的證據， 我們還是要用客觀的立場來看這本珍貴的經典。有人懷疑司馬遷的《史記．老子韓非列傳》,但是大多沒有分析過《史記．老子韓非列傳》的內容。由於劉先生對孔子見老的故事做細膩的分析以本人使用他的研究代表這個學派 。 劉先生寫「的確我對老子所有提到的紀錄，是推理性。」因此，本人使用純樸的邏輯和陳錫勇對《史記．老子韓非列傳》全文的分析來辯駁這個太過分懷疑傳統的看法。
據司馬遷所提供的資料來看，《老子》這本書本來是一個完整的思想系統。馬王堆甲本和乙本都以三十八章為第一章，《韓非‧解老》首先注解第三十八章，並且這就是他最完整注解的章節，在王弼注解中三十八章是他注解最長的章節在通行本，王弼注解文字和《老子》內容不相應，表示王弼所用的版本和配合他的註解之版本不一樣。。不管三十八章是《老子》的第一章或是《德篇》的第一篇，它就是了解《老子》 之「德」的最重要的章節。
三十八章原本的意思如此：「尚德不得，是以有徳；下德不失得，是以無德。尚德無為而無不為也。尚仁為之而無以為也。尚義為之而又以為也。尚禮為之而莫之應也，則攘臂而扔之。」儘管王弼花大約一千兩百字注解三十八章，大多學者沒有完整的分析它。 從本章的架構和《老子》的五十六跟十七、十八章，可以證明三十八章講「尚德，下德」，也沒有講「上德，上仁，上義，上禮」。老子講「尚德無為」，認為「尚仁，尚義，尚禮」都為之，「卑下德」。這個觀念論證老子「德篇」的內容。
The influence of the scientific method on the humanities has rightly caused scholars of the Laozi to look upon the tradition of the text and it's author with a suspicious eye. With the exception of the reversal of the Virtue section and the section on Dao, the Mawangdui silk manuscript generally speaking reflects the structure of the version passed down from tradition. It also reflects the meaning of the WangBi annotation and the description of the text as recorded by Sima Qian. However, the discovery of the Guodian bamboo slips resulted in a collapsing of any solid assurance that the text originally resembled the text that has been received from history. The bamboo slips contain approximately two thousand characters, the chapter order does not resemble the traditional text, the chapters themselves are not separated as clearly as in the traditional or silk versions, and some Chu characters meanings are not clear enough to determine the exact meaning of some chapters. For these reasons many modern scholars do not have reason to believe that Laozi was written by one person, or that the traditional account of the text is accurate. Many scholars believe that the text is an accumulation of ideas from various sources, and that the text does not necessarily contain a coherent philosophical system.
Since this position is the current trend in scholarship, even though this position has much evidence to support it, we ought to consider whether we have exaggerated the truth of the matter in doubting the traditional account. Many scholars base their doubt of the traditional account on the condition that Sima Qian's account is unreliable, but few scholars of Laozi bring up an analysis of Sima Qian's "Laozi HanFei LieZhuan". Since D.C Lau has an exceptional analysis of the story of Confucius meeting with Laozi, this thesis using that analysis as representative of the position that doubts the traditional view. Although his arguments are strong, he notes they are theories to consider. For this reason, I use logical arguments coupled with Chen Xi-Yong's analysis of Sima Qian's "Laozi HanFei LieZhuan" to argue against the idea that Sima Qian's account is completely unbelievable.
According to Sima Qian, Laozi was written by one person and contains a complete philosophical system. The Mawangdui silk versions of the text both take chapter thirty-eight as the first chapter of the text. HanFei's "Explaining Laozi" not only first interprets chapter thirty-eight, chapter thirty-eight is also completely analyzed in this text, something that is not offered to other chapters highlighted or chosen by HanFei. In WangBi's annotation of Laozi, chapter thirty-eight is the longest annotation provided, the character count more than doubling that of the second longest annotation. Lastly, WangBi's annotation and the traditional text do not correspond, indicating that the text that WangBi used was not the same text as the one that is usually called the "WangBi text". Whether or not chapter-thirty eight was originally the first chapter of the text when the text was fully formed, or whether it has always been the first chapter of the Book of Virtue, these facts indicate that this chapter was of unique importance to these early writers on the Laozi.
Chapter thirty-eight's content in the traditional text is incorrect, and originally was as follows:「尚德不得，是以有徳；下德不失得，是以無德。尚德無為而無不為也。尚仁為之而無以為也。尚義為之而又以為也。尚禮為之而莫之應也，則攘臂而扔之。」Neglecting the immense time that WangBi and HanFei spent on chapter thirty-eight, most scholars do not give a deep analysis of this chapter. Using the structure of the chapter and corresponding information in chapters seventeen, eighteen and fifty-six, we can see that chapter thirty-eight speaks of「尚德，下德」(valuing virtue and abandoning virtue) and not「上德，下德」(higher virtue and lower virtue). When this chapter speaks of「尚德無為」(valuing virtue and not acting) it is pointing out that those who value virtue perform non-action, and that those who value benevolence, righteousness and propriety all act and therefore do not value virtue. |
