完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位語言
dc.contributor.author王鵬凱
dc.contributor.otherPeng-Kai Wang
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-25T07:08:50Z-
dc.date.available2020-08-25T07:08:50Z-
dc.date.issued2012/10/31
dc.identifier.issn1682-587N
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.fcu.edu.tw/handle/2376/2540-
dc.description.abstract被魯迅稱為「前清的世故老人」紀昀,對他所贊同或反對的意見,往往很「世故」地「托狐鬼以抒己見」(魯迅語),紀昀常藉著鬼狐或是他人之口或抨擊或諷刺或讚揚眾儒者,透過這些故事的描繪,可以去探索紀昀內心一些未曾言明的想法,去瞭解他治學的趨向究竟為何。因此從紀昀在《閱微草堂筆記》中所刻劃的儒者形象,可以看出紀昀對當時儒者讚許與厭惡為何。從愛憎之中,可以得知紀昀對漢宋學的態度為何,同時也體現了他心中的治學標準為何。經過探析之_x000D_ 後,可以看出,就通經的方法而言,紀昀崇漢學考據方法的實;而黜宋學空談先天、心性之虛,這是紀昀在治學方法上和程朱理學的立異處。他欣賞的是漢學重考據徵實的治學方法,但是透過考據的方法來明瞭經典的真意(通經),最終的目的還是在於落實到經國濟世的「致用」上,如果只是沉湎於復古,導致泥古而食古不化,成為迂腐的學究,甚至陷入繁瑣的考證弊病當中,紀昀也會毫不客氣地給予辛辣的諷刺。正因為如此,紀昀重視通經致用的治學態度並不等同於當時偏重於考據方法的漢學,只能說他是趨向漢學的治學態度,但不以漢學為藩籬。再則,紀昀治學方法雖和程朱理學立異,但他仍能承認宋儒之長,也寫出講學家德性醇然真君子的形象,且有諸多消融門戶之見、力求公允之論的主張,以及對漢宋學短長的持平之論,可惜的是人們對此卻未注意。要言之,紀昀治學趨向為:趨向漢學的治學態度,但不以漢學為藩籬、攻訐程朱理學末流之弊,是對程朱理_x000D_ 學的修正,而非反對程朱理學,並主張消融門戶之見,持公允之論。雖然他儒者形象的描寫是相當成功,但他主張消融門戶之見的意見卻未獲得重視,但仍不失為「穴結」時代的代表人物。
dc.description.sponsorship逢甲大學
dc.format.extent43
dc.language.iso中文
dc.relation.ispartofseries逢甲人文社會學報
dc.relation.isversionof第二十期
dc.subject閱微草堂筆記
dc.subject紀昀
dc.subject儒者形象
dc.subject.otherYuewei Cottage Notes
dc.subject.otherJi Yun
dc.subject.otherimages of the Confucianists
dc.title從《閱微草堂筆記》中之儒者形象看紀昀的治學趨向
dc.title.alternativeThe Observations on Ji Yun’s Academic Inclinations from the Images of the Confucianists in Yuewei Cottage Notes
dc.type期刊篇目
dc.description.translationabstractFrom the images of the Confucianists depicted by Ji Yun in Yuewei Cottage Notes, I can see Ji Yun’s praise and detestation for the Confucianists at that time; from his love and hatred, I can know Ji Yun’s attitude towards Han and Song studies. _x000D_ Meanwhile, those images reflected the standard of academic value in his mind. By putting words in the mouth of ghosts and fairy foxes, Ji Yun frequently lashed and satirized those scholars that discoursed Neo-Confucianism with hollow words and high-sounding talk and pedants that were fettered by old conventions. Through the_x000D_ description of these stories, perhaps we can explore some of Ji Yun’s thoughts that he_x000D_ kept in his mind and had not stated clearly, and understand his academic inclinations. _x000D_ Via the analysis, I discovered that Ji Yun, when comprehending the classics, upheld the solidness of textual critical approaches of Han studies, and disapproved of the hollowness and indulgence in empty talk of genesis and temperament in Song studies._x000D_ That is one of the differences between the research approaches of Ji Yun and Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. Ji Yun admired the approach of Han studies that emphasized the textual criticism and verification; however, the final target of_x000D_ understanding the true meanings of the classics (comprehending the classics) via textual criticism should be fulfilling the “practical purposes” of governing and benefiting the people and the world. If scholars who were fettered by old conventions just wallowed in restoring ancient ways, insisted on pedantic rules, and even sank into textual criticism’s defects of being minute and complicated, Ji Yun would satirize them bitterly and bluntly. Consequently, Ji Yun’s research attitude of attaching_x000D_ importance to comprehending the classics and attaining practical use was not equal to Han studies that laid particular stress on the textual critical approach at that time. I can_x000D_ only say that he had an inclination to the research attitude of Han studies, but was not_x000D_ confined by Han studies. Moreover, although Ji Yun’s approach was different from that of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, he could still recognize the advantages of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, and held many fair arguments. However, it’s a pity_x000D_ that people did not pay attention to those fair arguments.
分類:第20期

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
30359.pdf845.95 kBAdobe PDF檢視/開啟


在 DSpace 系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。