德性“自我”的对话——先秦儒家与亚里士多德的比较

Dialogue on the Virtuous “Self”—A Comparison between Pre-Qin Confucianism and Aristotle

摘要: 在伦理学研究中，“自我”作为道德行为的主体性根基，是德性生成与发展的核心载体。先秦儒家(孔子、孟子、荀子)与西方亚里士多德均以“德性自我”为伦理思想的重要议题，但二者基于不同的文化语境与哲学传统，形成了各具特色的理论体系。本文以“德性自我”为核心对话点，从三个维度展开比较研究：其一，解析先秦儒家“己”“身”等概念与亚里士多德灵魂观中“自我”概念的表达差异，揭示前者礼法约束下的德性自觉与后者理性主导的自我认知之异；其二，探讨自我与德性的互动关系，对比儒家“修身”“化性起伪”与亚里士多德“实践理性”“习性养成”的德性培育路径；其三，阐释自我与最高本体的关联，辨析儒家“天”与亚里士多德“上帝”作为德性终极依据的象征意义及对“自我”超越维度的塑造。通过这种跨文化对话，不仅厘清二者在“德性自我”建构逻辑上的同异，更能为当代伦理学中道德主体的德性塑造提供理论参照与实践启示。

Abstract: In the study of ethics, “self” serves as the subjective foundation of moral behavior and is the core carrier for the generation and development of virtue. Both the Pre-Qin Confucianists (Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi) and the Western philosopher Aristotle regarded “the virtuous self” as an important topic in ethical thought. However, based on different cultural contexts and philosophical traditions, they formed distinctive theoretical systems. This paper takes “the virtuous self” as the core dialogue point and conducts a comparative study from three dimensions: First, it analyzes the differences in the expression of concepts such as “self” and “body” in Pre-Qin Confucianism and the concept of “self” in Aristotle’s view of the soul, revealing the differences between the former’s virtue consciousness under the constraints of ritual and law and the latter’s rational-led self-cognition. Second, it explores the interactive relationship between self and virtue, comparing the Confucian paths of “self-cultivation” and “transforming nature into artificiality” with Aristotle’s paths of “practical reason” and “habit formation” in virtue cultivation. Third, it explains the connection between self and the highest ontology, analyzing the symbolic meanings of Confucian “heaven” and Aristotle’s “God” as the ultimate basis of virtue and their shaping of the transcendence dimension of “self”. Through this cross-cultural dialogue, not only can the similarities and differences in the construction logic of “the virtuous self” between the two be clarified, but it can also provide theoretical references and practical insights for the virtue cultivation of moral subjects in contemporary ethics.