林端Lin, Duan臺灣大學:社會學研究所黃華彥Huang, Hwa-YenHwa-YenHuang2010-05-052018-06-282010-05-052018-06-282008U0001-3004200821445600http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/179135本論文從社會學的角度切入晚近國際漢學和比較哲學場域的一個特殊討論：「超越性」和「內在性」的討論。其討論焦點乃是當代漢學和比較哲學大師牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方在「同樣」的問題上 (如何以西方的「超越性」觀念和「內在性」觀念建構「中西文化類型學論述」) ，得到「不同」的答案 (牟宗三得出「內在超越性」和「外在超越性」的中西文化類型學論述，而郝大維和安樂哲則得出「內在性」和「超越性」的中西文化類型學論述) 而產生的爭鋒相對局面。在此討論中，「第三代新儒家」以及其他論者，一般認為牟宗三是「對」的，而郝大維和安樂哲則是「錯」的，並以「現代」和「後現代」以及「非東方主義」和「東方主義」等帶有價值判斷的對立性標籤，來描述兩方的論述。「第三代新儒家」依據特定立場進行判斷的哲學研究進路不同，本論文首先希望從Bourdieu的哲學論述的社會學研究綱領出發，論證牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方的「中西文化類型學論述」，由於指涉不同的社會文化脈絡，並具有不同的預設，因而兩方的論述的社會文化意涵是「不可共量」的。由兩方論述的不可共量性之確立，本論文將進一步質問為何「第三代新儒家」會認為兩方論述是「可共量」的，並以「現代」和「後現代」以及「非東方主義」和「東方主義」等帶有價值判斷的對立性標籤來描述兩方的論述。牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方的中西文化類型學論述的特殊性質，本文權宜性地建構出，考察它們的不同社會文化意涵時不可不重視的三個環節：兩方對「超越性」觀念和「內在性」觀念的不同使用 (use) 、兩方的不同「中西文化類型學的基本型態」、兩方的不同「橋樑」。由此，在第二章和第三章，本文首先考察了兩方「中西文化類型學的基本型態」的歷史性質。進而，在第四章和第五章，本文將把牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲兩方的論述生產 (整合上述三個環節) ，分別置入冷戰和國共內戰以及當代歐美社會的外在脈絡和內在脈絡中。最後，在結論的部分，本文將在兩方論述的「不可共量性」的基礎上，考察「第三代新儒家」為何在「超越性」和「內在性」的討論中如此評價兩方的論述。This thesis engages sociologically a major debate in contemporary sinology and comparative philosophy, namely “the transcendence and immanence debate.” The focus of this debate is the controversy concerning the “different” cultural typologies constructed respectively by Mou Zongsan and David Hall / Roger Ames (Hall and Ames) , respectively, using apparently “identical” Western ideas of transcendence and immanence. The former characterizes Chinese culture as immanent transcendence and Western culture as outer transcendence, while the latter characterizes Chinese culture as immanence and Western culture as transcendence. In this debate, the “Third-Generation New Confucians” and others generally argue that Mou Zongsan is “right” while Hall and Ames are “wrong.” Further, the “Third-generation New Confucians” characterize the difference between Mou and Hall and Ames’ positions with value-laden dichotomies such as modern vs. postmodern and non-orientalist vs. orientalist. n contrast to the Third-Generation New Confucians’ value-laden and philosophical method, this thesis wishes firstly to prove the “incommensurability” between Mou and Hall and Ames’ cultural typologies, viewing them as discursive productions that correspond to different socio-cultural contexts through Pierre Bourdieu’s framework. After empirically proving the incommensurability between Mou and Hall and Ames’ typologies, this thesis will then inquire into the motive and context behind the Third-Generation New Confucians’ belief that Mou and Hall and Ames’ typologies are “commensurable,” and their characterizing these two typologies with the aforementioned value-laden dichotomies. ue to the special nature of Mou and Hall and Ames’ cultural typologies, this thesis has provisionally devised three methodological constructs that will aid the understanding of their different socio-cultural significance: uses concerning apparently “identical” ideas of transcendence and immanence, basic typological frameworks, and philosophical bridges. Following this methodological procedure, chapters two and three will inquire into the historicity of Mou and Hall and Ames’ basic typological frameworks. In chapters four and five, this essay will situate Mou and Hall and Ames’ discursive production (reconstructed with the aid of the three methodological constructs) in their respective contexts (the Cold War and the Communist-Nationalist struggle vs. contemporary Western society). After settling the “incommensurability” of these two cultural typologies, this thesis will lastly explore briefly the motive and context behind the Third-Generation New Confucians’ understanding Mou and Hall and Ames in the aforementioned manner.目錄論一章 「超越性」和「內在性」的討論一節 研究動機……………………………………………………………………….…..1二節 略論牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲在中西文化類型學論述上的差異………… 5三節 研究方法………………………………………………….………………………14四節 章節安排……………………………………………………………….…………28一部分 牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲的中西文化類型學的基本型態之歷史溯源二章 Hall and Ames的中西文化類型學的基本型態之歷史溯源一節 導言………………………………………………………………………………33二節 17、18世紀時期的一元化中西文化類型學的基本型態…………..…….……34三節 19世紀時中西文化類型學的基本型態之歷史化轉折…………………………39四節 20世紀時中西文化類型學的基本型態之二元化轉折………………………...44五節 小結………………………………………………………………………………48三章 牟宗三的中西文化類型學的基本型態之歷史溯源一節 導言………………………………………………………………………………50二節 從「華夏vs.狄夷」到「中國vs.西方」………………….……………………51三節 中國本土科學論述社群的形成…………………………………………………55四節 中西文化類型學的基本型態之轉折：「道德」和「知識」………………………63五節 小結………………………………………………………………………………73二部分 牟宗三以及郝大維和安樂哲的中西文化類型學論述四章 牟宗三論中國的「內在超越性」和西方的「外在超越性」一節 導言………………………………………………………………………………77二節 牟宗三對超越性和內在性觀念之運用…………………………………………78三節 冷戰和國共內戰的外在脈絡和內在脈絡………………………………………90四節 民族本體的歷史任務：理性建國…………………………………………….. …98五節 牟宗三的中西文化類型學論述………………………………………………..106六節 小結……………………………………………………………………………..118五章 郝大維和安樂哲論中國的「內在性」和西方的「超越性」一節 導言……………………………………………………………………………..120二節 郝大維和安樂哲的外在脈絡………………………………………………….122三節 郝大維和安樂哲的內在脈絡………………………………………………….130四節 郝大維和安樂哲的觀念運用以及對時代的診斷……………………….……137五節 Hall and Ames的中西文化類型學論述………………………….……………149六節 小結………………………………………………………………….………….161論………………………………………………………………………….……...163目…………………………………………………………………………………176application/pdf1351695 bytesapplication/pdfen-US漢學和比較哲學中西文化類型學論述超越性和內在性牟宗三郝大維和安樂哲第三代新儒家可共量性和不可共量性Pierre Bourdieu統理現代性後現代性Sinology and Comparative PhilosophyCultural TypologyTranscendence and ImmanenceMou ZongsanDavid Hall and Roger AmesThird-Generation New ConfuciansCommensurability and IncommensurabilityGovernmentalityModernityPostmodernitythesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/179135/1/ntu-97-R93325009-1.pdf