荻生徂徕思想的实学背景考量——另一种“近代”

Examination of Ogyu Sorai's Thought under the Background of the Pragmatic Learning Thought:Another Kind of “Modern”

关于日本近世儒学家荻生徂徕"近代先驱"的身份问题,学界已经不乏争论,除了从徂徕思想本身具有的维护而非肢解幕藩体制的一面作为回应之外,还可以更加"釜底抽薪"地直接去考察所谓"近代"标准的合法性问题。本文即选择了丸山真男及岛田虔次勾勒出的中日"近代"节点作为探讨的对象,通过对荻生徂徕的"政治性"解读,我们可以发现丸山真男意义上的"政治性"其实与徂徕本身的"政治优越"有很大的差异;而通过对阳明及其后学展现出的岛田虔次意义上的"解放"和"独立"的分析,我们就可以发现其实质仍旧以"群"作为前提。两种范式的"曲解"实质在于二者虽然都力图呈现中日两国本身具有的"近代"因素,但实际上却仍旧以西方的"近代"标准在选取和分析所谓的中日"近代"节点。如果我们返回到"近代"这个作为一个历史阶段而非价值判断的中性词本身的话,也许我们就可以用更加宽广的视野透视思想史本身。本文即是在将徂徕思想置身于整个宋明理学的背景之下对徂徕思想作出的一番"实学"背景的描摹,以此来阐述另一种"近代"。

NThere have been a lot of debates over the identity of the Japanese Confucian Ogyu Sorai as “modern pioneer”. We need to think over the word “modern” and its standard before we distinguish whether Sorai is a “modern pioneer” or not. Through the “modern” nodes chosen from Masao Maruyama and Shimada Kenji, we can ifnd that, on the one hand, the meaning of “political” has some kind of difference between Maruyama and Sorai; on the other hand, we can discover that the “liberation” and “independence” which Shimada Kenji treats as “modern” standards of Yangming and his followers are still based on “group”. Although both of them are trying to show the “modern” factors in their own unique histories, in fact they are still ifxed on Western “modern” standard when selecting and analyzing the “modern” node. If we treat “modern” as a historical stage without too much value judgment, maybe we can ifnd a broader vision in East Asian intellectual history. So if we put Sorai’s thought under the background of Song and Ming Dynasties in China, then maybe we can ifnd Pragmatic Learning Thought as another description of “modern”.