解释《中庸》:孔子是诡辩派还是亚里士多德派  

Interpreting the Zhongyong: Was Confucius a Sophistic or an Aristotelian ?

作　　者：理查德.斯蒂克勒 蓝海霞 蓝复生 

机构地区：[1]美国乔治城大学 [2]威斯康辛大学英文系 [3]梅友诊所实验病理系

出　　处：《求是学刊》2005年第2期13-21,共9页Seeking Truth

摘　　要：本篇论证了安乐哲和郝大维最近对《中庸》的解释和翻译在中国和西方思维样式之间划了一条错误的对立二分法的界线。西方思想并不都是以一个永恒不变的本质为出发点的 ,而中国的思想也不总是基于一个无确定性的变化世界。孔子的概念像“诚”和“物”与亚里士多德的本体语言很相似 ,两者都基于一个能动存在体的世界 ;这些存在体自返地努力完善和实现它们自己固有的潜能。所以用古希腊的诡辩派的语言来翻译这些及其它有关的中国的词语在哲学上是使人误解和不恰当的。而正像在这篇文章里看到的 ,恰当理解的亚里士多德的本体语言才能对《中庸》原文作出准确的表达和描述。In this paper I argue that Roger Ames’ and David Hall’s recent interpretation and translation of the Zhongyong draws a false dichotomy between Chinese and Western modes of thought. Western thought does not invariably postulate a world of unchanging eternal essences nor does Chinese thought always presume a world of indeterminate change. Much like Aristotle’s language of substance, Confucian concepts such as cheng (诚) and wu (物) presume a world of dynamic entities that self-reflexively strive to perfect and complete their own inherent potentiality. Therefore, it is philosophically misleading and inappropriate to use the language of the ancient Greek Sophists, or what Ames and Hall call the process language of “focus and field,” to translate these and other related Chinese terms. When the Aristotelian language of substance is properly understood, it is seen to provide a more accurate rendering of the text.

关 键 词：孔子 亚里士多德 普罗泰戈拉 本体 因果 

分 类 号：B222[哲学宗教—中国哲学]