中国古代有伦理学吗

发布时间：2018-12-10 13:51

【摘要】：20世纪以来中国人对"伦理学"这个西方学科的接受主要是从研究对象出发的,未能从思维方式角度思考伦理学作为一门科学成立的前提条件,因而普遍忽视了"中国伦理学是否能成立"这一对于研究中国伦理学来说根本性的问题。其结果是人们不假思索地将中国古代的伦理道德学说一律称为"中国伦理学"的内容,不仅导致对西方伦理学的误解,而且无益于国学传统的发扬光大。从亚里士多德对phronesis与sophia在希腊文中的含义区分出发,可以发现"伦理学"作为一门科学成立的前提问题非常重要,只有区分"儒家学说中有伦理学"和"儒家道德学说是伦理学"这两个判断,才能正确使用"儒家伦理学"或"中国古代伦理学"这类术语。此外,"儒家伦理学"、"中国古代伦理学"其实是用"伦理学"这一西方学科范畴对中国古代学术传统进行人为加工和重构的产物,决不能代替本来意义上的中国古代学术传统,特别是儒家学术;把儒家学术纳入"伦理学"等西方学科范畴,并以之为中国古代学术传统的最佳现代解读方式,可能在一定程度上导致对中国古代学术传统、特别是儒家传统自身独立性的抹杀和独特价值的忽视。
[Abstract]:Since the 20th century, Chinese people's acceptance of "ethics" as a western discipline has been mainly based on the object of study, and failed to consider ethics as a prerequisite for the establishment of science from the perspective of mode of thinking. Therefore, the fundamental question of whether Chinese ethics can be established is generally ignored. The result is that the Chinese ancient ethics theory is called "Chinese ethics" without thinking, which not only leads to the misunderstanding of western ethics, but also does not benefit the development of the traditional Chinese culture. From Aristotle's distinction between phronesis and sophia in Greek, we can find that "ethics" as a prerequisite for the establishment of a science is very important. Only by distinguishing between "ethics in Confucianism" and "ethics in Confucian ethics" can such terms as "Confucian ethics" or "ancient Chinese ethics" be used correctly. In addition, "Confucian ethics" and "ancient Chinese ethics" are actually the products of artificial processing and reconstruction of ancient Chinese academic tradition with the category of "ethics" as a western discipline. In no way can replace the Chinese ancient academic tradition in the original sense, especially the Confucianism academic; Bringing Confucian learning into the category of "ethics" and taking it as the best modern interpretation of Chinese ancient academic tradition may lead to a certain extent to the ancient Chinese academic tradition. In particular, the Confucian tradition of its own independence and neglect of the unique value.
【作者单位】：清华大学历史系暨思想文化研究所;
【分类号】：B82

【共引文献】