論晚明儒者耿定向之學術及其價值──與《明儒學案》商榷
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2013-09-??
Authors
袁光儀
Yuan, Guang-yi
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國文系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract
晚明儒者耿定向，是推動王陽明入祀孔廟的重要代表人物，在當世曾有高度評價，其學術亦影響諸多學者，如劉元卿、管志道、焦竑、祝世祿、潘士藻等皆出其門，實堪稱為一代宗師。然而，因他與著名的爭議性思想家李卓吾長年論爭，卻又最終復合；此外，其居官行事，亦與當時東林君子之「清議」不合，故《明儒學案》對其人品及學術多有貶抑與質疑。但《明儒學案》鑑於「王學流弊」，對泰州、龍溪以下之學者，所論未必客觀恰當，後世學者亦已有所檢討，考察其對於耿定向生平事蹟之取材，實不無偏頗，而對其學術之評議，亦不免囿於成見，故本文擬就《明儒學案》之意見作一澄清與回應，期能還原耿定向在學術史上之地位，並申明其學術之內涵與價值。
The Late-Ming Confucian Geng Ding-xiang was the important representative of promoting Wang Yang-ming to be worshiped in Confucius Temple event, highly appraised as a great master and affected many his disciples and scholars such as Liu Yuan-qing, Guan Zhi-dao, Jiao Hong, Zhu Shi-lu, Pan Shi-zao etc. Still, due to the controversy but the final composite with the famous controversial thinker Li Zhuo-wu, and his official acts conflicted with the Dong Lin Junzi “Qing Yi” (清議), Ming Ru Xue An discoursed his character and academic as a detractive and questioned way of view. However, for the “Wang Xue Abuses” (王學流弊), the comments of Ming Ru Xue An about the scholars after Taizhou and Longxi school may not be objective and appropriate. Recent literatures about Geng Ding-xiang are inevitably biased and trapped by dogma. Therefore, regarding the opinion of the Ming Ru Xue An, the paper proposed for a clarification and response recovering the status of Geng Ding-xiang in the intellectual history and affirming his academic meaning and value.
The Late-Ming Confucian Geng Ding-xiang was the important representative of promoting Wang Yang-ming to be worshiped in Confucius Temple event, highly appraised as a great master and affected many his disciples and scholars such as Liu Yuan-qing, Guan Zhi-dao, Jiao Hong, Zhu Shi-lu, Pan Shi-zao etc. Still, due to the controversy but the final composite with the famous controversial thinker Li Zhuo-wu, and his official acts conflicted with the Dong Lin Junzi “Qing Yi” (清議), Ming Ru Xue An discoursed his character and academic as a detractive and questioned way of view. However, for the “Wang Xue Abuses” (王學流弊), the comments of Ming Ru Xue An about the scholars after Taizhou and Longxi school may not be objective and appropriate. Recent literatures about Geng Ding-xiang are inevitably biased and trapped by dogma. Therefore, regarding the opinion of the Ming Ru Xue An, the paper proposed for a clarification and response recovering the status of Geng Ding-xiang in the intellectual history and affirming his academic meaning and value.