論戴震 (1723–1777) 之考證哲學及其反思/On Dai Zhen’s (1723–1777) Philosophy of Evidential Research and Its Reflection

  • Jer-shiarn LEE Professor, Graduate School of Chinese Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Taiwan
Keywords: evidential research scholarship (kaozhengxue), revivalism, philosophy of principle (neo-confucianism), Han learning, philosophy of evidential research

Abstract

摘要

清代乾嘉時期之學風係以考證知名。之所以如此,主要由於乾嘉學者不滿宋、明學者以哲學思辯之方式研究儒學典籍,而未能把握原始儒學之真貌,故轉而以考證之方式來研究儒家之原典,其目的在於欲恢復原始儒學之真貌。在乾嘉時期,戴震雖被視為最重要之考證學者之一,然戴氏為學之旨趣,實超出考證學之外,而欲以之作為彰顯儒學原貌之方法學。戴氏明言,其為學之方法乃是一語言學或訓詁之方法,亦即欲以訓詁之方法來研究哲學之問題,以之作為彰顯原始儒學真相之最佳方法,並由此建立其考證哲學,其目的即欲以本身之哲學來取代宋、明理學。依此,本文旨在探究戴震在重建原始儒學之努力,並針對戴氏之考證哲學作一反思,以明其價值及限制。

關鍵詞:考證學、復古主義、理學、漢學、考證哲學

Dai Zhen was known as a leading proponent of the evidential research (kaozheng) school during the Qian Jia Era. However, he regarded kaozheng as primarily a means of revealing the truth. Moreover, he was regarded as a philosopher rather than as merely a kaozheng, or textual, scholar. In this respect, his philosophical writings reflect an attempt to substitute his own philosophy for the Song Philosophy of Principle (lixue). Dai Zhen’s philosophical writings indicate the impact philology had on philosophical issues. The methodology Dai Zhen adopted was essentially linguistic, that is, xungu (etymology, lit., “glossing”). The merit of this methodology was that it would trace back the original meanings of key terms in the Classics, and this in turn, would benefit the understanding of the Confucian tradition. The aim of this paper is to explore Dai Zhen’s attempt to reconstruct the Confucian tradition, and to assess his philosophy of evidential research in order to manifest its value and limitation.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2012-09-25
How to Cite
LEEJ.- shiarn. (2012). 論戴震 (1723–1777) 之考證哲學及其反思/On Dai Zhen’s (1723–1777) Philosophy of Evidential Research and Its Reflection. Asian Studies, -16(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2012.-16.1.29-41