00 87 7 良 知 與 知 覺 析 論 羅 整 菴 與 歐 陽 南 野 的 論 辯 一 論 辯 的 緣 起 經 過 與 雙 方 的 前 見 7- -7-0 - (NSC7-0-H-00-0- MY) 0 (0) (8) (0) -287-
(thematized) 7 (0) () 8 00 8-00 00 8-0 0-08 7 00 - 脉 000 7 7 7 8-7 87-007 8 80-288-
() 8 10 () 11 12 87 7 8 袠 0 07-0 10 7-11 12-289-
(prejudices) 13 - - 14 15 16 17 13 8 14-7 15 0 16 17 - 覩 -290-
18 19 着 20 21 22 23 18 19 20 7 21 22 7 23-8 007-291-
二 羅 整 菴 駁 斥 良 知 即 天 理 而 主 張 良 知 即 知 覺 而 非 天 理 的 論 據 ( 一 ) 良 知 即 知 覺 (homogeneous) (heterogeneous) 輙 輙 24 25 24 8 25-292-
(Vorstellungskraft, faculty of representation) 26 perception 27 28 26 7 27 8 70 28 1986 5 85-293-
( 二 ) 良 知 非 天 理 29 30 31 29 30 8-31 却 000 8 87 (dualism) -294-
32 33 34 32 輙 153-154 33 34-295-
0-08 35 8 (substance) (reality) (reality) reality (moral creative reality) 87 (substance) (accident) (reality) (nothing) (reality) 35 0 00 0-0 -296-
却 36 ( 三 ) 天 地 萬 物 無 良 知 36-297-
37 (reality) 38 37-38 -298-
着 39 ( 四 ) 致 知 易 簡, 忽 略 格 物 工 夫 40 迹 礲 39 7 40-299-
41 42 43 却 44 45 41 0 42 43 7 44 45-300-
三 歐 陽 南 野 申 明 良 知 即 天 理 而 非 知 覺 的 論 據 ( 一 ) 良 知 非 知 覺 46 47 46 47-301-
48 49 (0-) (Immanuel Kant, 7-80) (intellectual intuition) 50 48 7 00-0 49 70 8 50 87 8 8-0 -302-
51 52 却 53 54 51 1 16 52 53-0 8 54 8-303-
55 56 0 008-78 55 0 56 000 7 8-304-
( 二 ) 良 知 即 天 理 57 58 59 57 58-7 59 7-305-
60 60 8-306-
( 三 ) 天 地 萬 物 皆 有 良 知 61 62 63 61 7 62 63 8-307-
64 却 却 65 64 7-8 65 8-308-
( 四 ) 格 物 致 知 是 本 領 工 夫 66 礲 礲 67 66 67 8-309-
68 四 良 知 與 知 覺 之 辯 的 哲 學 意 義 69 70 71 87-72 68 0 69 7 00 70 0 71 7 72-310-
73 74 (-) 75 76 8-00 0-0- 00-7 73 0-74 - 007 77 75 8 b-7a 76 1651-1708 1682-1751 서울 1986 202-203 문석 윤 조선 후기의 주요 논쟁과 갱검 한국국학진흥원 국학연구실 Ⅲ 안동 한국국학진흥원 2005 325-340 의 철학과 조선학자들의 논변 1999 4-311-
00-077 77 78 79 80 77 8 78 7 79 80-312-
81-81 -313-
良 知 與 知 覺 析 論 羅 整 菴 與 歐 陽 南 野 的 論 辯 -7 - 關 鍵 詞 : 羅 整 菴 歐 陽 南 野 良 知 知 覺 天 理 -314-
Liangzhi and Zhijue: An Analysis of the Debate between Luo Zhengan and Ouyang Nanye LIN Yueh-hui This paper examines the important debate conducted by Luo Zhengan (1465-1547), a master of the Zhu Xi school, and Ouyang Nanye (1496-1554), a scholar of the (Wang) Yang-Ming school, during the Ming dynasty. Luo and Ouyang debated on the ideas of liangzhi (original knowing) and zhijue (the faculty of representation), which also implicated theoretical differences between the Zhu Xi and Yang-Ming schools of Neo-Confucianism. Luo, closely following the theoretical structure of Zhu Xi s idea of xinxing (mind-nature), made a rigid distinction between mind and nature. He interpreted Yang-ming s liangzhi in terms of zhijue, identified Yang-ming s liangzhi being tianli (the heavenly principle) with treating zhijue as nature, and argued vehemently that liangzhi and tianli are far from one and the same thing. In contrast, Ouyang was well-versed in Yang-ming s dialectical thinking that both substance and function come from the same source. By clarifying the relationship of liangzhi and zhijue being inseparable and immiscible, he was opposed to treating zhijue as liangzhi. Liangzhi and tianli are one and the same thing, Ouyang contended. As a result, we have found in the debate two contradictions. One concerns the relationship between liangzhi and tianli; that is, Luo s liangzhi and tianli being far from one and the same thing contradicts Ouyang s liangzhi and tianli being one and the same thing. The other contradiction resides in what underlies the above two propositions. Justifying their respective positions regarding liangzhi and tianli, Luo appealed to identifying liangzhi with zhijue, and Ouyang denied liangzhi being zhijue. This paper intends to fulfill three objectives: First, to disclose the theoretical presuppositions of the Zhu Xi and Yang-Ming schools; secondly, to indicate the fundamental differences in understanding the subject (whether mind being zhijue or liangzhi) and the ontological substance (tianli) between Zhu Xi and Yang-Ming schools; thirdly, to suggest that, in the context of either the history of Chinese philosophy or East Asian Confucianism, this debate on liangzhi and zhijue is a philosophical topic rich in contents and worthy of more attention. Keywords: Luo Zhengan Ouyang Nanye liangzhi (original knowing) zhijue (faculty of representation) tianli (heavenly principle) -315-
徵 引 書 目 007 8 000 8 87 87 00 00 007 00 008 00 00 000 8 000 8 8 8 00 87 007 00 7 00-8 -316-
문석윤 조선 후기의 주요 논쟁과 갱검 한국국학진흥원 국학연구실 안동 한국국학진흥원 00 서울 8 의 철학과 조선학자들의 논변 -317-