从“致知疑难”的求解看牟宗三与熊十力的异同

The Similarity and Difference of Mou Zongsan to Xiong Shili from How to Solve the Difficulty of the Relation between “Perfection of Conscience” and “Investigation of Things”

"致知在格物"是中国儒家古代经典《大学》中的名句。宋明以来,新儒家在如何诠释它时发生分歧,朱熹把这句话解释为获得知识依赖于研究事物,王阳明则将这句话理解为通过克服私欲实现致良知。对这句话的不同诠释反映了朱熹的理学与王阳明的心学之间的重大差异。熊十力在《读经示要》中诠释《大学》时,主张把王阳明对"致知"的诠释与朱熹对"格物"的诠释结合起来,因为他意识到宋明理学与心学中各自的问题,并发觉以"良知"为基础的道德和以"认知"为基础的科学之间的张力。而牟宗三则认为这两者甚难接头,他提出了解决这一问题的方式,其"良知坎陷论"就是在这一过程中发展起来的。尽管牟宗三举其大旨继承了熊十力的哲学思想,但在对知识论和本体论的研究途径上,与熊十力依然存在差别,而这些差别关系到他后来哲学的走向和哲学成就的得失,值得我们认真辨别。

In ancient Chinese Confucian classics The Great Learning （《大学》） there is a famous sentence ＂study the world in order to gain knowledge＂ （＂致知在格物＂ ）, to which the Neo-Confucianists diverged in how to interpret since Song and Ming Dynasties. According to Zhu Xi this sentence was construed to acquire knowledge depending on investigation of things, while according to Wang Yangming it was understood as the perfection of conscience by means of overcoming material desires. The different interpretation of this sentence reflects the significant difference between the Principle School and the Mind School in the Neo-Confucianist tradition. In the modern times Xiong Shill wanted to combine Wang Yangming＇s interpretations of ＂perfection of conscience＂ with Zhu Xi＇s interpretation of ＂investigation of things＂ in his book On Significance of Confucian Classics, because he was aware of their respective problems, and as well as the tension between the moral based on conscience and the science based on the cognition. However, Mou Zongsan felt that it is difficult to joint both side. Mou Zongsan put forward his way of solving this problem, and for the purpose to establish ＂the outside king＂ of science and democracy from ＂the inside saint＂ of conscience he developed his theory on ＂self- negation of conscience＂. Although Mou Zongsan has inherited Xiong Shili＇s main thought, there are still subtle differences in their approach to the theory of knowledge and ontology. It is worth our serious discrimination because these differences are related to the orientation of his later philosophy and the gain and loss of his philosophical achievement.