| Abstract: | 本論文主要是研究船山「時中」觀。「時中」雖已見於《周易》、《中庸》及《正蒙》，但因船山特重即氣言理、即器言道，並強調道德必實踐於客觀現實，故與「時中」之義特有深會。探究船山「時中」，不僅能說明船山義理的獨特內涵，亦可更深入理解儒學的「時中」觀。 論證分五階段：其一，既是處理船山「時中」觀，首先必須指出船山對「時中」的關注程度，因此藉由《張子正蒙注》與劉璣《正蒙會稿》、李光地《注解正蒙》的比較，凸顯船山詮解《正蒙》時，確實有意且積極的關注「時中」。其二，在前階段的基礎工夫後，接下來則透過變常合而不悖、主一以統萬行、從理論轉移到生命、限制創造的相互依存等討論，揭示「時中」的並建思維，並呈現其整體、真實、意義及價值。其三，辨明船山所批判的偽「時中」，世俗、釋氏、陸王學者或莊子，雖亦能言「時中」，但皆非道德與客觀的並建，故非真「時中」。其四，則辨析中和、中庸及時中的同異，三者皆根源「中道」，彼此本有貫通重疊處，但卻又因不同的關注，遂有差異，「時中」則是客觀現實意味最為濃厚者，既能正面承擔「困境」，更可展開人文歷史，此即最貼近船山對人之為人的認知。其五，此階段藉由仕隱問題探析「際」之「時中」的複雜與實踐難度，同時亦對船山評議他者仕隱進行檢討與反思。 統觀此五階段，除第一階段為研究船山「時中」觀的入門工夫，後四階段則分由不同面向，申明「時中」實為重取客觀現實的道德論。而此不僅是船山義理的最終歸趨，亦是對儒學的實質貢獻，或言補宋明儒者之不足處。總之，船山的「時中」觀，即是揭示人之為人的觀照方式，人必須「盡道時中以俟命」，人必須在客觀現實完成道德實踐，道德與客觀是並建，缺一不可。
This dissertation mainly deals with Wang Quan Shan's perspective of "Shi Zhong". Although "Shi Zhong" has appeared in " Zhouyi", "The Doctrine of the Mean" and " Zheng Meng", but Quan Shan put great emphasis on "from Qi to personality" and "from objectivity to Dao". He also emphasized that morality must be practiced in objective reality. That means he truly understood the meaning of "Shi Zhong". Through studying Quan Shan's "Shi Zhong", we not only can explain the unique substance of Quan Shan's meaning and reason but also deeply understand the perspective of " Shi Zhong " in Confucianism. My dissertation could be divided into five phases. First, I had to point out Quan Shan's degree of concern of "Shi Zhong" in the first place in order to deal with Quan Shan's perspective of "Shi Zhong". I compared among " Chang tzu cheng meng chu", " Zheng meng hui gao" of Liu Ji and "Zhu jie Zheng meng" of Lee Guang Di to reveal Quan Shan truly and actively paid attention to "Shi Zhong" when he annotated " Zheng meng". Secondly, I continued to reveal juxtaposing thoughts of "Shi Zhong" and present its totality, reality, meaning and value through discussing a harmony of constancy and change, totality leading human practice , from theory to life, and interdependence of restriction and creation. Thirdly, I tried to differentiate pseudo "Shi Zhong" criticized by Quan Shan. Because laymen, Buddhism, Lu-Wang School or Zhuangzi did not juxtapose morality and objectivity, they were not real "Shi Zhong" even they discussed "Shi Zhong". Fourthly, I discussed differences between "Shi Zhong", "the doctrine of the mean" and " Zhong He". Although they all originated from "Zhong Dao" and had overlapping parts, they also had differences because of their different concern. "Shi Zhong" was prone to be the most objective and real one. "Shi Zhong" not only can assume "difficult position" positively but also unfold human history. This situation was closest to Quan Shan's recognition of the difference between humans and animals. Fifthly, I analyzed complexities and practical difficulties of "Shi Zhong" of "Ji" through the problem of being hermit or official. I also examined and reflected some statements of being hermit or official that Quan Shan had criticized. To sum up these five phases, except the basic research of Quan Shan's perspective of "Shi Zhong" in the first phase, final four stages attempted to demonstrate that "Shi Zhong" was moral theories of regaining objectivity and reality from different perspectives. This was not only the destination of Quan Shan's meaning and reason but also substantive contributions to Confucianism, i.e. a complement to deficiencies in Neo-Confucianism. In conclusion, Quan Shan's perspective of "Shi Zhong" was a way of revealing differences between humans and animals. Humans must face their fate according to their condition in a adequate way and accomplish moral practices in objective reality. Morality and objectivity are both necessary and should be juxtaposed. |
