竹简《五行》思想研究与成书年代考

发布时间：2018-06-17 13:05

本文选题：竹简《五行》 + 成书年代　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文共分四章。第一章阐释《五行》的基本思想;其余三章考证《五行》的成书年代。第一章共分四节。第一节通过阐释“行”与“德之行”的关系,说明“仁义礼智圣”都是人的精神本体,以此来说明《五行》的思想为纯粹的性善论;第二节通过阐释“天道”、“人道”与“君子道”之间的关系,来说明《五行》的整体理论框架;第三节主要阐释《五行》的“慎其独”的道德修养方法;第四节讨论学界目前研究《五行》思想中存在的两个问题。自竹简《五行》出土以来,多数学者认为其为战国前期子思的作品,而日本学者池田知久却认为《五行》出自战国晚期。目前没有学者去论证池田知久的观点对错,故而笔者在第二章中补充此理论空白。本章共分两节,第一节论证《孟子》有引用《五行》语言的行为,从而论证《五行》成书早于《孟子》;第二节从竹简《缁衣》入手,论证《五行》与《孟子》共用的专业术语为《五行》所独创,证明《五行》的成书早于《孟子》。从而说明池田知久先生的观点不能成立。目前,郭沂、陈来等学者认为《五行》成书早于《中庸》,笔者以为其成书晚于《中庸》。本章共分三节。第一节:从《五行》与《中庸》的整体结构论证它们为同一学派作品;第二节:从《五行》与《中庸》认识论术语上的差异,论证《五行》晚于《中庸》;第三节:从《五行》与《中庸》对与“义”的表达的不同,论证《五行》晚于《中庸》。目前,多数学者认为《五行》出自子思之手,但笔者以为《五行》出于子思后学之手。故而在第四章中讨论这个问题,本章共分两节。第一节:《荀子·非十二子》中的断句问题。《非十二子》一文,是学者们把《五行》理解为子思作品的根本依据,但是他们的这种依据,是建立在对《非十二子》中“此真先君子之言也,子思唱之,孟轲和之”一语的错误断句的基础上的,笔者在此小节中分析这个断句问题,指出该条线索不能作为子思写作《五行》的证据;第二节:论证《五行》的作者与具体的成书时间。在本章笔者将论述《五行》的作者为子思的弟子,而不是子思。
[Abstract]:This paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter explains the basic thought of the five elements, and the other three chapters textual research on the writing age of the five elements. The first chapter consists of four sections. The first section explains the relationship between "line" and "the journey of virtue", and explains that "benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and saintness" are all the spiritual ontology of human beings, thus explaining the thought of "five elements" as a pure theory of sexual goodness; the second section explains "the Tao of Heaven" by explaining the "Tao of Heaven". The relationship between "humanity" and "Superior way" is used to explain the overall theoretical framework of "five elements", the third section mainly explains the moral cultivation method of "being careful of its own independence" in the "five elements". The fourth section discusses two problems existing in the study of the five elements. Since bamboo slips "five elements" were unearthed, most scholars considered them to be the works of Zi Si in the early warring States period, while the Japanese scholar, Ikeda, thought that the "five elements" came from the late warring States period. At present, there are no scholars to prove Ikeda's long-known view right and wrong, so the author adds this theory blank in the second chapter. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section demonstrates that Mencius has the behavior of quoting the language of "five elements", so that the "five elements" are written before Mencius, and the second section begins with bamboo slips, It is proved that the common terms of "five elements" and "Mencius" were coined by the "five elements", which proved that the "five elements" came into being earlier than the "Mencius". This shows that Mr. Ikeda's view does not hold true. At present, Guo Yi, Chen Lai and other scholars think that the "five elements" became a book earlier than "the mean", and the author thinks that the book is later than "the mean". This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section: from the whole structure of "five elements" and "the mean" to prove that they are the same school works; the second section: from the "five elements" and "the mean" epistemological terminology differences, The third section: from the difference between the expression of < five elements > and the mean and "righteousness", it proves that the < five elements > are later than the "mean". At present, most scholars think that "five elements" comes from the hand of "Zi Si", but the author thinks that "five elements" comes from the hand of "Zi Si". Therefore, the fourth chapter discusses this issue, this chapter is divided into two sections. Section one: the question of sentence breakage in "Xunzi's Non-Twelve". The article "Non-Twelve" is the fundamental basis for scholars to interpret the "five elements" as the basis for Zi's thinking works, but this is their basis. It is based on the wrong sentence breakage of the phrase "this true gentleman said, Zi Si sang, Meng Ke and he" in "Non-Twelve son". In this section, the author analyzes the question of the broken sentence. It is pointed out that this clue can not be used as evidence for the writing of "five elements" by Zi Si, and the second section is to demonstrate the author of "five elements" and the specific time of the completion of the book. In this chapter, I will discuss that the author of the five elements is a disciple of Zi Si, not a disciple of Zi Si.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：K877.5

【相似文献】