內容簡介
《思想史4》收錄中文論著二篇、英文論著二篇、研究討論一篇、書評一篇。在論著部分，吳孟謙呈現了晚明思想的多元價值現象；蔡孟翰以近代東亞四國（中國、日本、朝鮮、越南）為分析對象，討論「民族」一詞的由來與演變；Roy Tseng（曾國祥）探索牟宗三思想與黑格爾（Hegel）、格林（T. H. Green）之淵源；Harry T. Dicknson一文則聚焦於英國從十八世紀下半葉到十九世紀上半葉之間的民主化過程，討論公民自由、政治權力與經濟發展之間的互動關係。
目次
【論著】
吳孟謙 敦化川流──論管東溟的判教思想及其時代關懷
蔡孟翰 從宗族到民族──「東亞民族主義」的形成與原理
Roy Tseng Revisiting Mou Tsung-san’s Idea of Moral Religion:A Dialogue with Hegel and T. H. Green
Harry T. Dickinson How Democratic were British Politics from the Wilkesites to the Chartists (1760s-1840s)?
【研究討論】
陳禹仲 近代早期歐洲思想史中的曼德維爾
【書評】
楊貞德 評李淑珍《安身立命：現代華人公私領域的探索與重建》
內文選摘（節錄）
吳孟謙 敦化川流──論管東溟的判教思想及其時代關懷
管東溟是晚明具有高度創造性的思想家之一，在朱子學、陽明學、禪學流弊俱顯的時代，他不為一宗一派所拘限，透過《華嚴經》與《周易》的會通，解構前儒的道統論。在其「敦化川流」的判教論述中，管東溟一方面給予不同宗教學術一個共通的思想底盤，撤除三教的藩籬；另一方面也企圖衡定各種教說的淺深高下，勾畫其心目中理想的修行藍圖，為當時學術尋求新的出路。
本文探究管東溟的判教思想，依次展開為以下幾個面向：一、從宏觀的角度，釐清「三教合一」的幾個層次；二、分析晚明思想界價值多歧的時代氛圍，突顯管東溟判教論的形成背景；三、觀察管東溟如何會通《華嚴經》與《周易》，對理學的道統論述進行解構；四、討論管東溟「敦化川流」的判教思想，及其會通儒佛的見地；五、指出管東溟之所以判釋三教的時代關懷。最後，總結管東溟判教思想的理論特色與思想史意義。
從宗族到民族──「東亞民族主義」的形成與原理
本文試圖回答東亞的各國（中日朝越）是否有一個共同的民族主義建構，亦或是各有各的民族主義。從東亞政治思想史切入，考察「民族」一詞的由來，東亞各國皆用「民族」一詞，發現「民族」一詞雖為歐語nation的新造譯語，但是「民族」概念的構成，實出自宋代以來之宗族論。宗族論則又出自於郡縣封建論爭之脈絡。文中復討論宗族論中宗統君統合一或二分與大宗小宗之辨，大宗宗法至明末清初，業已被視為統合人民、保衛國家之道，但尚未有一國所有人民皆為一族之想像。郡縣封建論爭飄洋過海，在日本江戶時期伊始綿綿不休，至19世紀會澤正志齋面對西方威脅，在封建郡縣的脈絡裡，以大宗宗法建構「國體」論與「始祖」論，奠定「東亞民族主義」之基礎。「東亞民族主義」則完成於明治時期穂積八束之憲法理論。中越朝於19世紀末自日本襲取「民族」一詞與民族主義理論。文中進而討論東亞之「始祖」論與歐洲之「始祖」論，由此證明歐洲民族主義，在思想上對「東亞民族主義」之建構無甚影響。東亞之「民族」源於宗族論，「東亞民族主義」則是世俗化宗統君統合一的大宗宗法，亦是一種政治神學。這種民族主義實則為國家民族主義，有別於市民民族主義或族群民族主義。
Revisiting Mou Tsung-san’s Idea of Moral Religion: A Dialogue with Hegel and T. H. Green
Consideration of the Confucian notion of moral religion has a long history,but while I am appreciative of the fruits of previous studies, here I amconcerned specifically with a reconstruction of Mou Tsung-san’s idea of moralreligion through a potential dialogue with Hegel and T. H. Green. Moreprecisely, my aims in this paper are twofold: First, I am trying to highlight thethree main aspects of the idea of moral religion in the thought of Hegel andGreen: the disapproval of the orthodox Christian view that God is external tohumanity; a reinterpretation of the attributes of God through internalization;and the moral ideal of self-realization as the fulfillment of one’s inner moralitythrough communicating with the way in which God works in history. Second, Iam arguing that Mou Tsung-san’s renovation of Confucian moral religion isintensely indebted to Hegel; and consequently that his re-examination of theethical personality in Confucian thought bears a remarkable resemblance toGreen’s idea of self-realization. Seen in this light, a far-reaching dialoguebetween Neo-Confucianism and British Idealism, which promotes a certainform of “perfectionist liberalism,” can help to answer the question of how andin what sense Confucianism can accommodate liberal values.
學界有關儒家道德宗教觀念的探究已有很長一段歷史。先前研究成果誠然令人欽佩，此文特別關注的問題則是如何通過與黑格爾和格林的對話，來重建牟宗三的道德宗教理念。本文主要目標有二：首先，我將試著揭露構成黑格爾與格林之道德宗教思想的三個基本觀點：對正統基督教主張上帝外在於人類世界之看法的否決、從內在化的角度重新界定上帝屬性、將自我實現的道德理想理解成個人之內在道德在歷史中的客觀實現。其次，我將接著指出，牟宗三活化儒家道德宗教的基本構想，其實深受黑格爾的啟發；也因此，他對儒家思想中的倫理人格的解釋，十分類似於格林著稱的自我實現倫理。由此觀之，開啟新儒家與提倡「圓善論自由主義」的英國觀念論之間的廣泛對話，將有助於我們反思儒家與自由民主價值的相容問題。
How Democratic were British Politicsfrom the Wilkesites to the Chartists (1760s-1840s)?
This article suggests that Britain experienced efforts at a democratic revolution in the later eighteenth and earlier nineteenth centuries just as much as France or the USA. British radicals over these decades engaged in an intense ideological campaign to defend civil liberties, promote active political rights and to advocate greater economic equality. They also engaged in major political campaigns to extend the franchise to more Britons, but did not often attack monarchy or aristocracy. Some radicals did propose ways to improve the economic conditions of the poor masses. While impressive, neither the ideological campaign in support of greater liberty nor the political efforts to achieve a fairer and more democratic society achieved complete success. This does not mean however that British political culture was not more democratic by the mid-nineteenth century than it had been a century before. To appreciate Britain’s more open and participatory culture by the mid-nineteenth century it is necessary to look at such activities and developments as popular involvement in elections, urban expansion, the growth of a free press, wider literacy, the expansion of voluntary associations, and the frequency of public meetings and popular disturbances.
《思想史4》收錄中文論著二篇、英文論著二篇、研究討論一篇、書評一篇。在論著部分，吳孟謙呈現了晚明思想的多元價值現象；蔡孟翰以近代東亞四國（中國、日本、朝鮮、越南）為分析對象，討論「民族」一詞的由來與演變；Roy Tseng（曾國祥）探索牟宗三思想與黑格爾（Hegel）、格林（T. H. Green）之淵源；Harry T. Dicknson一文則聚焦於英國從十八世紀下半葉到十九世紀上半葉之間的民主化過程，討論公民自由、政治權力與經濟發展之間的互動關係。
目次
【論著】
吳孟謙 敦化川流──論管東溟的判教思想及其時代關懷
蔡孟翰 從宗族到民族──「東亞民族主義」的形成與原理
Roy Tseng Revisiting Mou Tsung-san’s Idea of Moral Religion:A Dialogue with Hegel and T. H. Green
Harry T. Dickinson How Democratic were British Politics from the Wilkesites to the Chartists (1760s-1840s)?
【研究討論】
陳禹仲 近代早期歐洲思想史中的曼德維爾
【書評】
楊貞德 評李淑珍《安身立命：現代華人公私領域的探索與重建》
內文選摘（節錄）
吳孟謙 敦化川流──論管東溟的判教思想及其時代關懷
管東溟是晚明具有高度創造性的思想家之一，在朱子學、陽明學、禪學流弊俱顯的時代，他不為一宗一派所拘限，透過《華嚴經》與《周易》的會通，解構前儒的道統論。在其「敦化川流」的判教論述中，管東溟一方面給予不同宗教學術一個共通的思想底盤，撤除三教的藩籬；另一方面也企圖衡定各種教說的淺深高下，勾畫其心目中理想的修行藍圖，為當時學術尋求新的出路。
本文探究管東溟的判教思想，依次展開為以下幾個面向：一、從宏觀的角度，釐清「三教合一」的幾個層次；二、分析晚明思想界價值多歧的時代氛圍，突顯管東溟判教論的形成背景；三、觀察管東溟如何會通《華嚴經》與《周易》，對理學的道統論述進行解構；四、討論管東溟「敦化川流」的判教思想，及其會通儒佛的見地；五、指出管東溟之所以判釋三教的時代關懷。最後，總結管東溟判教思想的理論特色與思想史意義。
從宗族到民族──「東亞民族主義」的形成與原理
本文試圖回答東亞的各國（中日朝越）是否有一個共同的民族主義建構，亦或是各有各的民族主義。從東亞政治思想史切入，考察「民族」一詞的由來，東亞各國皆用「民族」一詞，發現「民族」一詞雖為歐語nation的新造譯語，但是「民族」概念的構成，實出自宋代以來之宗族論。宗族論則又出自於郡縣封建論爭之脈絡。文中復討論宗族論中宗統君統合一或二分與大宗小宗之辨，大宗宗法至明末清初，業已被視為統合人民、保衛國家之道，但尚未有一國所有人民皆為一族之想像。郡縣封建論爭飄洋過海，在日本江戶時期伊始綿綿不休，至19世紀會澤正志齋面對西方威脅，在封建郡縣的脈絡裡，以大宗宗法建構「國體」論與「始祖」論，奠定「東亞民族主義」之基礎。「東亞民族主義」則完成於明治時期穂積八束之憲法理論。中越朝於19世紀末自日本襲取「民族」一詞與民族主義理論。文中進而討論東亞之「始祖」論與歐洲之「始祖」論，由此證明歐洲民族主義，在思想上對「東亞民族主義」之建構無甚影響。東亞之「民族」源於宗族論，「東亞民族主義」則是世俗化宗統君統合一的大宗宗法，亦是一種政治神學。這種民族主義實則為國家民族主義，有別於市民民族主義或族群民族主義。
Revisiting Mou Tsung-san’s Idea of Moral Religion: A Dialogue with Hegel and T. H. Green
Consideration of the Confucian notion of moral religion has a long history,but while I am appreciative of the fruits of previous studies, here I amconcerned specifically with a reconstruction of Mou Tsung-san’s idea of moralreligion through a potential dialogue with Hegel and T. H. Green. Moreprecisely, my aims in this paper are twofold: First, I am trying to highlight thethree main aspects of the idea of moral religion in the thought of Hegel andGreen: the disapproval of the orthodox Christian view that God is external tohumanity; a reinterpretation of the attributes of God through internalization;and the moral ideal of self-realization as the fulfillment of one’s inner moralitythrough communicating with the way in which God works in history. Second, Iam arguing that Mou Tsung-san’s renovation of Confucian moral religion isintensely indebted to Hegel; and consequently that his re-examination of theethical personality in Confucian thought bears a remarkable resemblance toGreen’s idea of self-realization. Seen in this light, a far-reaching dialoguebetween Neo-Confucianism and British Idealism, which promotes a certainform of “perfectionist liberalism,” can help to answer the question of how andin what sense Confucianism can accommodate liberal values.
學界有關儒家道德宗教觀念的探究已有很長一段歷史。先前研究成果誠然令人欽佩，此文特別關注的問題則是如何通過與黑格爾和格林的對話，來重建牟宗三的道德宗教理念。本文主要目標有二：首先，我將試著揭露構成黑格爾與格林之道德宗教思想的三個基本觀點：對正統基督教主張上帝外在於人類世界之看法的否決、從內在化的角度重新界定上帝屬性、將自我實現的道德理想理解成個人之內在道德在歷史中的客觀實現。其次，我將接著指出，牟宗三活化儒家道德宗教的基本構想，其實深受黑格爾的啟發；也因此，他對儒家思想中的倫理人格的解釋，十分類似於格林著稱的自我實現倫理。由此觀之，開啟新儒家與提倡「圓善論自由主義」的英國觀念論之間的廣泛對話，將有助於我們反思儒家與自由民主價值的相容問題。
How Democratic were British Politicsfrom the Wilkesites to the Chartists (1760s-1840s)?
This article suggests that Britain experienced efforts at a democratic revolution in the later eighteenth and earlier nineteenth centuries just as much as France or the USA. British radicals over these decades engaged in an intense ideological campaign to defend civil liberties, promote active political rights and to advocate greater economic equality. They also engaged in major political campaigns to extend the franchise to more Britons, but did not often attack monarchy or aristocracy. Some radicals did propose ways to improve the economic conditions of the poor masses. While impressive, neither the ideological campaign in support of greater liberty nor the political efforts to achieve a fairer and more democratic society achieved complete success. This does not mean however that British political culture was not more democratic by the mid-nineteenth century than it had been a century before. To appreciate Britain’s more open and participatory culture by the mid-nineteenth century it is necessary to look at such activities and developments as popular involvement in elections, urban expansion, the growth of a free press, wider literacy, the expansion of voluntary associations, and the frequency of public meetings and popular disturbances.