牟宗三“道德的形而上学”中的超越、内在与失落
Transcendence, Immanence and Loss in Mu Zongsan’s “Metaphysics of Morality”
摘要: 牟宗三通过道体、性体与心体内在逻辑关系,建构起道德的形而上学的理论框架,从先验道德的层面阐述道德的形而上学何以成为可能。三者间超越与内在两个向度最终被实践打通,二者相即不离,既超越又内在,道德的形而上学便成为实践的形而上学。但其实践是超越向度(以及内在向度)的实践,于现实向度上不足。从超越向度处为实践争取回在现实向度中的位置与活动空间,使理性化的感性品格在日用常行、道德践履中恢复感性。这或将成为道德的形而上学不再失落的可能路径。
Abstract:
Mu Zongsan constructs the theoretical framework of moral metaphysics through the logical relationship between Tao body, nature body and mind body, and explains why moral metaphysics is possible from the perspective of transcendental morality. The two dimensions of transcendence and immanence among the three are finally opened up by practice, and the two are inseparable, both transcendence and immanence, and the metaphysics of morality becomes the metaphysics of practice. But its practice is beyond the dimension (and the inner dimension) of the practice, in the reality of the insufficient dimension. Strive for the position and activity space of practice in the realistic dimension from the perspective of transcendence, so as to restore the sensibility of rational perceptual character in daily practice and moral practice. This may be a possible way for the metaphysics of morality to cease to be lost.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
牟宗三. 心体与性体[M]. 上海: 上海古籍出版社, 1999.
|
|
[2]
|
张渊. 牟宗三哲学体系中“性”的内涵[J]. 人民论坛, 2015(35): 205-207.
|
|
[3]
|
牟宗三. 从陆象山到刘蕺山[M]. 上海: 上海古籍出版社, 2001: 12.
|
|
[4]
|
杨泽波. 未冠以存有论名称的存有论思想——牟宗三《心体与性体》存有论思想辨析[J]. 现代哲学, 2004(2): 53-58.
|
|
[5]
|
陶清. 心学与性学: 牟宗三的学派归属抉奥[J]. 江淮论坛, 2018(2): 76-82.
|
|
[6]
|
卢兴. 论牟宗三哲学中的“实践”观念[J]. 中国哲学史, 2012(3): 124-129.
|
|
[7]
|
张子立. “本体宇宙论”与“实现物自身”——论牟宗三“道德的形上学”两种创生型态[J]. 深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2014, 31(3): 47-56.
|
|
[8]
|
程志华, 史育华. 牟宗三哲学的问题及其解决——“道德的形上学”的义理骨干[J]. 河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016, 43(5): 13-20.
|
|
[9]
|
石永之. 牟宗三的道德形上学刍议[J]. 理论学刊, 2006(8): 65-67.
|