Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 羅欽順氣學思想之定位及與王廷相比較研究
Other Titles: Particularity and Difference in Luo, Qin-shun and Wang, Ting-xiangs' Theory
Authors: 郭寶文
Kuo, Pao-wen
Issue Date: Dec-2017
Publisher: 國立台灣師範大學國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract: 羅欽順思想究竟屬於理學還是氣學,雖然學界意見頗為分歧,但其實有其一致之傾向:論理氣時明確提出氣為本體,主張「理氣一貫而不同一」,並重視氣之理一。論心性則主張心、性同屬一心,而有體、用之分,同樣重視道心之性。故在修養工夫上,羅欽順便主張透過「格物」、「誠意、克己、節欲」、「重敬」等工夫,返回具足、至善的氣之理一和道心之性。故羅欽順雖主張「以氣為本」,實是一氣學家,思想卻仍有受到理學影響的痕跡。若和明代最典型的氣學家王廷相相比,無論是並重理一和分殊之理,或未特別重視未發之中和道心,還是強調心知、物理內外交致,而後不停循環、積累認知的修養工夫論,都和羅欽順不同,可知羅欽順思想實屬另一種氣學的思路。
Academics are hard to reach a consensus on Luo, Qin-shun's theory is a part of Neo-Confucianism, or a part of Qi theory. This research will discover the consistent context in Luo, Qin-shun's Qi theory. For example, Luo, Qin-shun had advocated the principle of qi and qi are intimate but not the same thing, and he had valued the principle more than manifestations. He had also emphasized the distinction between dao-xin(道心)and ren-xin(人心), and he also had valued the importance of dao-xin(道心). Therefore, Luo, Qin-shun had paid more attention to the theories of self-cultivation, which were focused on how to return the principle of qi and dao-xin(道心), such as to investigate things, to abandon desires, and to respect. "Returning" and "developing" are different aspects between Luo, Qin-shun and Wang, Ting-xiangs' Theory, and it had indicated the particularity of Luo, Qin-shun's philosophy.
Other Identifiers: 352A70A0-3371-2D06-4022-B430D853A081
Appears in Collections:國文學報

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
ntnulib_ja_B0102_0062_159.pdf1.04 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.