《老子》诠释:“道不可言”能走多远

发布时间：2018-01-16 21:06

本文关键词：《老子》诠释:“道不可言”能走多远　出处：《周易研究》2017年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】："道不可言"是古今《老子》诠释的主流倾向,然而却与《老子》"五千言"这一文本事实直接冲突,两千年的《老子》诠释史始终无法摆脱"不可言—不得不言—唯恐陷溺于言"的纠结。为了维护《老子》文本及相关诠释的合法性,诠释者们往往不得不转而承认存在特殊有效的"道言",另有学者则更进一步,基于马王堆帛书文本和思想逻辑的考虑,建议将"道可道"章第1节(第2节仿此)重解为"道是可以言说的,但不是人们一向所说的那样"。但是,这种"有违古训"的倡议非常弱势,近年来,更是遭到李若晖基于朴学式考据和"恒不可言—常可言—恒常相似"义理架构的强烈阻击。为此,有必要以"归谬+疏导"的方式批判传统主张,展示"《老子》之道可言"论的逻辑力道,以便《老子》学界更加自觉地向"究竟应该如何言道"转移其注意力。
[Abstract]:"Tao can not speak" is the mainstream tendency of the interpretation of "Laozi", but it conflicts directly with the text fact of "5,000 words". In order to maintain the legitimacy of Laozi's text and related interpretation, the history of interpretation of Laozi for two thousand years has always been unable to get rid of the entanglement of "unspeakable-to have to speak-to be afraid of indulging in words". The hermeneutics often have to admit the existence of a special and effective "Tao Yan", and some scholars go further, based on the consideration of the text and ideological logic of the silk book of Mawangdui. It is suggested that section 1 (parody 2) of the "Tao can Tao" chapter be reinterpreted as "Tao can be spoken, but not as it has always been said to be". However, this initiative to "go against the ancient precepts" is very weak and has been very weak in recent years. Li Ruohui was also strongly attacked by Li Ruohui based on the textual research of Pu Xue style and the framework of justice and theory of "immutable, unspeakable, constant similar". Therefore, it is necessary to criticize the traditional ideas in the way of "fallacy and guidance". To show the logical power of the theory of "the Tao of Laozi", so that the scholars of Laozi can shift their attention more consciously to "how to speak and say".
【作者单位】：山东大学儒学高等研究院;
【基金】：山东大学基本科研业务费专项资金(12310075614001) 国家社会科学基金重点项目:“比较视阈下中国经典诠释传统现代化路径研究”(14AZD092)
【分类号】：B223.1
【正文快照】： Lao-zi.“道不可言”是古今《老子》诠释的主流观点,传世本开篇的“道可道,非常道”句,常被视为支持这种观点的最直接的文本证据。然而,当代学者胡曲园(1959、1980)、洪家义(1987)认为,以及帛书本《老子》面世之后周生春(1990、1992)、郭世铭(1999)、何宗思(2003)、裘锡圭(201

【相似文献】