English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90058/119991 (75%)
Visitors : 24073322      Online Users : 2340
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 中國文學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/80690
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/80690


    Title: 「性惡」即「本惡」──從「性」的定義探究荀子性惡論的意涵
    Other Titles: Human Nature is Evil”Means“ Human Nature is Originally Evil”: Discussing the Doctrine of Sinful Nature of Xunzi via the Meaning of“ Nature”
    Authors: 曾暐傑
    Tseng, Wei-Chieh
    Contributors: 中文系
    Keywords: 荀子;性惡;本惡;性朴;人性論
    Xunzi;the human nature is evil;the human nature in original evil;the human nature is not good but also not bad;the doctrine of human nature
    Date: 2013-12
    Issue Date: 2016-01-21 14:49:21 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 荀子的性惡論歷來頗具爭議,尤其宋明以來多秉持著二程「只一句性惡,大
    本已失」以及朱熹「不須理會荀卿,且理會孟子性善」的觀點。近年來荀子的地
    位與價值逐漸提升,學者多不再以性惡論非難之,且多認為荀子所謂的性惡論,
    並非「人性本惡」,「性惡」在荀子的論證中只是個綜合命題而非分析命題,人應
    該是具有內在價值根源的。然而,如傅斯年所言,性字在先秦時期都是以生字為
    本訓,也就是「生之謂性」是約定俗成的定義。對於性作為「人生而本有」的意
    義上,孟荀之間是沒有差別的,兩者的不同的關鍵在於:人生而本有的是什麼?
    前者為四端之心,而後者為自然欲望。那麼「性」字本身應該即具「本有」之義,
    那麼將「性惡」與「本惡」分為二橛似乎沒有必要。且如果說孟子的性善論可以
    稱之為人性本善,但麼沒有理由荀子的性惡論不能理解為人性本惡。歷來學者多
    以荀子所謂的自然欲望情性本身不為惡,「順是」才會形成惡,故不得稱之為「本
    惡」。然而,孟子的四端本身不也不是善嗎?那也只是善的根源。況且相對於儒
    家的禮義規範為「善」,那自然的欲望就是一種「惡」。但在荀子的脈絡中,善與
    惡並非如基督宗教有如此強烈的正邪意涵,那只是一種在禮義脈絡中,以「正理
    平治」與否為判準的一個論述,是相對於孟子性善論,並極欲凸出禮義師法重要
    性的一個論述策論。故言荀子道人性本惡而無礙於其作為儒家的理想與價值。
    The doctrine of sinful nature of Xunzi have been getting critical from Sung
    dynasty to contemporary. It is to be observed that more and more scholar to approve
    the value and position of Xunzi in the history of Chinese thought these day. Although
    the doctrine of Xunzi is be promoted in contemporary academic circle, scholar almost
    deny the doctrine of sinful nature of Xunzi and say“ human nature is evil”not
    means“ human nature is originally evil, ”even say the doctrine of xunzi means
    the human nature is good. I think the doctrine of sinful nature has important position
    in Xunzi, we can not deny it easily. What the doctrine of human nature of Xunzi mean,
    we should discuss it via the meaning of“ nature, ”but not have interpretation
    without any evidence. The meaning of “ nature”in the Pre-Qin dynasty is
    “ inherent, ”so the meaning of “ nature”almost equal to the “ originally
    have. ”That is to say we do not need to differentiate between“human nature is
    evil ”and“human nature is originally evil. ”At any rate, we can not deny to the
    doctrine of sinful nature of Xunzi is mean“ human nature is originally evil, ”
    otherwise the doctrine of politics and self-cultivation of Xunzi will not in coincidence
    in his though system.
    Relation: 成大宗教與文化學報, No.20, pp.47-64
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[中國文學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    408996.pdf779KbAdobe PDF5547View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback