儒家伦理学视域下的“人”论：由此开始甚善

Theorizing “Person”in Confucian Ethics: A Good Place to Start

人论是儒家伦理学理解中国哲学的钥匙。与西方本体论、目的论宇宙观不同,儒家认为万物是相互依赖的。西方个人是分离的、个体化的个人,而儒家的个人在内在关系、构建性关系中"在",前者不过是对后者的抽象。儒家对人的理解是叙事性的,人不是永恒不变的灵魂,不是"现成的人",而是"生成中的人",儒家伦理学是一种重榜样而轻原则的彻底的经验主义。儒家之"人"同时是"焦点"(focus)和围绕焦点展开的"场域"(field),有利于在关系和角色中的人成长的就是道德的。美德伦理学主张德性(virtue)与早期儒家之"德"相对应,而仁的整体性、叙事性则使儒家伦理与角色伦理相通。评价角色的标准不应是独立于角色的德性,而是所有的复杂性综合起来的关系,角色在关系中的成长才是主要的。借助杜威的直觉经验论,我们确认了经验就是它所是的东西,并且它是真实的。主体的同一性并不在事先,因此,我们主张用"全息焦点"(Holographic Focus)来代替"主体"概念。我们是所有关系的综合,在关系中构成自身,而关系本身是内在的。

Confucian conception of person is the starting point of Confucian ethics. Different from our ontological and teleological cosmology,the Confucian assumption is an interdependent one. Our commonsense understanding of the discrete and substantial individual is merely an abstraction of its narrative where persons are in inner and constitutive relationships. The'being'of a 'human being'is a permanent,ready-made,and self-sufficient soul—a human being; but we are 'human becomings'in Confucian Ethics,which is a radical empiricism that favors historical models over principles. Person in Confucian Ethics is both focus and its focused field appealing to a narrative understanding of relationship. What is moral is conduct that conduces to growth and flourishing of persons in the roles and relations. It is claimed in Virtue Ethics that the early Confucian counterpart of the term'virtue'( arete) can be found in the term,de. And it is the holistic and narrative meaning of the term ren that makes classical Confucianism references role ethics. The standards of critical evaluation are not independent of the roles,but the quality of their relationships with all of the complexity of it and ultimately the growth in the specific role itself. By invoking Postulate of Immediate Empiricism of Dewey,we admit that experience is what it is,and it is all real. We offer a holographic'Focus'as the functional equivalent of'Agency',arguing that personal identity is not pre-existing. We are the sum of and are constituted by our relationships themselves on a doctrine of internal relations.