荻生徂徠與戴震的語文學方法

Abstract

日本德川儒者荻生徂徠（1666～1728）的古文辭方法和戴震（1724～1777）的「訓詁以明其道」有其相通之處，兩人均採用「語文學詮釋學」的方法，主張恪守語文學的進路來揭示古代經典文本的整體脈絡與哲學意涵。荻生徂徠和戴震的方法特色即是兼採語文學與哲學兩種方法，並且比前儒更有意識地強調語文學方法在哲學詮釋中的必要性。兩位思想家大部分的論點都相當一致，他們都反對宋儒（尤其是程朱）在理論上所建立的「理」的超越同一性，而重視個體的差異（戴震從「分理」與「氣」著手，徂徠則強調「性人人殊」），在實踐上則共同強調禮樂習熟的重要。就同一方法的操作來看，徂徠的結論幾乎大部分和戴震相同，然而有個相當關鍵的歧異是：徂徠認為「氣非古義」。運用同一方法來解釋先秦儒家經典，為何會有不同的結論？對於氣是否為古義的歧異論點，也顯示出他們兩人對於語文學方法運用的尺度還是有寬嚴之別。除此之外，筆者也將檢討，若真嚴格貫徹他們所標舉的方法，會導致何種詮釋上的困難。

Ogyū Sorai (1666~1728) and Dai Zhen (1724~1777) both used the same method of philological hermeneutics to interpret ancient Confucianism in the pre-Qin period. Their conclusions are similar, with one exception: Sorai does not think that the concept of Qi（氣）did exist during the Spring and Autumn Period (770~476 B.C.). If this is the case, then Dai Zhen might have made the same mistake as the Song Confucians: interpreting Confucianism in foreign terms; otherwise we can assume that the concept of Qi can be traced to ancient classics such as Yi（《易》）, Zuozhuan（《左傳》）, and Guoyu（《國語》）, which were written during the Spring and Autumn Period. We seek to determine whether Dai Zhen’s theory of Qi-based human nature can be interpreted using his own system of philological hermeneutics. The discourse of both thinkers is compared to examine the objective validity of their methods, and to establish why they reached distinct conclusions by using the same methods.