RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재 SCOPUS

      王船山對宋儒朱子主張‘告子認氣爲性’之反省—─孟告之辯的詮釋 = Reflection of Wang Chuan-shan on “Gaozi treats qi as nature” Suggested by Zhu Xi: Interpretation on the Debate between Gaozi and Mencius

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A103768237

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      告子與孟子對於人性的論辯一直是哲學史上的重要議題, 朱子對於孟告之辯的評論是, 孟子知性之爲理, 故爲正說;評論告子認氣爲性, 故不知性。然船山在哲學史上亦屬氣學之說。故船山對於氣說護航, 然船山學還是以孟子爲正, 故重新以氣學的方式, 對朱子的詮釋提出質疑;一方面認爲朱子視告子的認氣爲性之說是有誤的。因爲若真能懂氣, 則能懂性。然也並不因此即視告子爲正統, 一方面他亦指出告子之失, 失於只識氣之用, 而不識氣之體;另一方面, 認爲告子以具象物喻性, 則爲不知性。然孟子亦以物喻性, 而船山於此間, 如何折合孟子之喻爲正、而告子之喻不正, 乃本文所要處理的問題。最後船山視告子以情才爲性, 都是不知性, 而不能談到性之至善;因爲情、才可善可惡, 而不到性善之層次。吾人認爲船山與朱子對於氣的定義實有不同, 故於文中申論之。
      번역하기

      告子與孟子對於人性的論辯一直是哲學史上的重要議題, 朱子對於孟告之辯的評論是, 孟子知性之爲理, 故爲正說;評論告子認氣爲性, 故不知性。然船山在哲學史上亦屬氣學之說。故船山對於...

      告子與孟子對於人性的論辯一直是哲學史上的重要議題, 朱子對於孟告之辯的評論是, 孟子知性之爲理, 故爲正說;評論告子認氣爲性, 故不知性。然船山在哲學史上亦屬氣學之說。故船山對於氣說護航, 然船山學還是以孟子爲正, 故重新以氣學的方式, 對朱子的詮釋提出質疑;一方面認爲朱子視告子的認氣爲性之說是有誤的。因爲若真能懂氣, 則能懂性。然也並不因此即視告子爲正統, 一方面他亦指出告子之失, 失於只識氣之用, 而不識氣之體;另一方面, 認爲告子以具象物喻性, 則爲不知性。然孟子亦以物喻性, 而船山於此間, 如何折合孟子之喻爲正、而告子之喻不正, 乃本文所要處理的問題。最後船山視告子以情才爲性, 都是不知性, 而不能談到性之至善;因爲情、才可善可惡, 而不到性善之層次。吾人認爲船山與朱子對於氣的定義實有不同, 故於文中申論之。

      더보기

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The debate between Gaozi and Mencius on humanity has been an important issue in the intellectual history of Chinese Philosophy. Zhu Xi understands that Mencius correctly treated nature as li, whereas Gaozi incorrectly regarded qi as nature because he did not understand nature properly. On the other hand, the thought of Wang Chuan-shan belongs to the school of thought based on the theory of qi. Wang also understands that Mencius’s idea is correct, though he offers different understanding of the debate from the perspective of the theory of qi and questions Zhu Xi’s understanding. On the one hand, Wang thinks that Zhu Xi incorrectly understands that Gaozi regarded qi as nature, for he thinks that proper understanding of qi leads to proper understanding of nature. However, Wang also points out that Gaozi merely understood the function of qi, but he did not properly understand the underlying substance of qi. On the other hand, for Wang, Zhu Xi misunderstands that Gaozi understood nature metaphorically in terms of concrete objects in the world, so that he did not understand nature at all. However, Mencius in fact also understood nature metaphorically in terms of concrete objects in the actual world. For this reason, the question raised in this paper is on what basis Wang can think that Mencius’s metaphor is correct, whereas Gaozi’s metaphor is wrong. Finally, Wang suggests that Gaozi regarded affection as nature, and therefore he did not understand nature and could not suggest the highest goodness of nature. This paper suggests that Wang Chuan-shan and Zhu Xi define qi differently.
      번역하기

      The debate between Gaozi and Mencius on humanity has been an important issue in the intellectual history of Chinese Philosophy. Zhu Xi understands that Mencius correctly treated nature as li, whereas Gaozi incorrectly regarded qi as nature because he ...

      The debate between Gaozi and Mencius on humanity has been an important issue in the intellectual history of Chinese Philosophy. Zhu Xi understands that Mencius correctly treated nature as li, whereas Gaozi incorrectly regarded qi as nature because he did not understand nature properly. On the other hand, the thought of Wang Chuan-shan belongs to the school of thought based on the theory of qi. Wang also understands that Mencius’s idea is correct, though he offers different understanding of the debate from the perspective of the theory of qi and questions Zhu Xi’s understanding. On the one hand, Wang thinks that Zhu Xi incorrectly understands that Gaozi regarded qi as nature, for he thinks that proper understanding of qi leads to proper understanding of nature. However, Wang also points out that Gaozi merely understood the function of qi, but he did not properly understand the underlying substance of qi. On the other hand, for Wang, Zhu Xi misunderstands that Gaozi understood nature metaphorically in terms of concrete objects in the world, so that he did not understand nature at all. However, Mencius in fact also understood nature metaphorically in terms of concrete objects in the actual world. For this reason, the question raised in this paper is on what basis Wang can think that Mencius’s metaphor is correct, whereas Gaozi’s metaphor is wrong. Finally, Wang suggests that Gaozi regarded affection as nature, and therefore he did not understand nature and could not suggest the highest goodness of nature. This paper suggests that Wang Chuan-shan and Zhu Xi define qi differently.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 沈善洪, "黃宗羲全集" 浙江古籍出版社 2005

      2 陸九淵, "陸九淵集" 中華書局 1980

      3 王夫之, "船山全書" 岳麓書社 1996

      4 陳啟文, "王船山兩端而一致之思維的辯證性及其開展" 師範大學國文所 2006

      5 林安梧, "王船山人性史哲學之研究" 東大圖書股份有限公司 1991

      6 徐世昌, "清儒學案" 中華書局 2008

      7 黎靖德, "朱子語類" 文津出版社 1986

      8 戴震, "戴震集" 上海古籍出版社 1980

      9 牟宗三, "心體與性體(三)" 正中書局 1969

      10 丁爲祥, "學術性格與思想譜系-朱子的哲學視野及其歷史影響的發生學考察" 人民出版社 2012

      1 沈善洪, "黃宗羲全集" 浙江古籍出版社 2005

      2 陸九淵, "陸九淵集" 中華書局 1980

      3 王夫之, "船山全書" 岳麓書社 1996

      4 陳啟文, "王船山兩端而一致之思維的辯證性及其開展" 師範大學國文所 2006

      5 林安梧, "王船山人性史哲學之研究" 東大圖書股份有限公司 1991

      6 徐世昌, "清儒學案" 中華書局 2008

      7 黎靖德, "朱子語類" 文津出版社 1986

      8 戴震, "戴震集" 上海古籍出版社 1980

      9 牟宗三, "心體與性體(三)" 正中書局 1969

      10 丁爲祥, "學術性格與思想譜系-朱子的哲學視野及其歷史影響的發生學考察" 人民出版社 2012

      11 周兵, "天人之際的理學新詮釋-王夫之《讀四書大全說》思想研究" 巴蜀書社 2006

      12 牟宗三, "圓善論" 學生書局 1985

      13 朱子, "四書章句集注" 鵝湖出版社 1984

      14 胡廣, "四書大全" 臺灣商務印書館 1986

      15 唐君毅, "哲學論集" 臺灣學生書局 1990

      16 錢穆, "中國近三百年學術史" 台灣商務印書館 1980

      17 唐君毅, "中國哲學原論‧原教篇" 臺灣學生書局 1984

      18 唐君毅, "中國哲學原論‧原性篇" 臺灣學生書局 1990

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-12-20 학술지명변경 한글명 : 國際版<儒敎文化硏究> -> Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
      외국어명 : 미등록 -> Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
      KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2011-06-13 학회명변경 영문명 : Institute of Confucian Cultural Studies -> Institute of Confucian Philosophy and Culture KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.1 0.1 0.08
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.06 0.04 0.351 0.1
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼