谁是明代儒学第一人?  

Who is the First Person in the History of Ming Confucianism?

作　　者：秦晋楠 QIN Jin-nan

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学国际儒学院

出　　处：《北京社会科学》2025年第1期53-62,共10页Social Sciences of Beijing

基　　金：北京市社会科学基金青年学术带头人项目(24DTR009)——明代气论哲学研究。

摘　　要：自明末至今,学者们对谁是明代儒学第一人这个问题从不同的角度给出过不同的答案。有人从文臣第一的角度主张过宋濂,有人从学祖的角度主张过方孝孺,有人从道统的角度主张是曹端,也有人从南北之争、气论与心学的角度分别主张过薛瑄、吴与弼。不同的答案背后常常反映出看待明代理学、明代儒学、明代哲学的不同视角。对此,应予以厘清。厘清工作表明:一方面,道统建构与历史真实之间有张力;另一方面,学术史本身就是复杂的,既需要关注被讲述的学术史中的人及其思想,也需要留意梳理学术史的人及其立场。Since the late Ming Dynasty,scholars have given different answers to the question of who is the first person in the history of Ming Confucianism from different angles.Some advocated Song Lian(宋濂)from the perspective of the first literati,some advocated Fang Xiaoru(方孝孺)from the perspective of the starter of Confucianism,some advocated Cao Duan(曹端)from the perspective of the Neo-Confucian orthodoxy,and some advocated Xue Xuan(薛瑄)and Wu Yubi(吴与弼)from the perspectives of the North-South controversy,and the starter of the theory of Qi(气)and the theory of the heart,respectively.Different answers often reflect different perspectives on Ming Neo-Confucianism,Ming Confucianism,and the philosophy in the Ming Dynasty.Thus it should be clarified.Such clarification also reminds us that,on the one hand,there is a tension between the construction of Neo-Confucian orthodoxy and historical truth,and on the other hand,academic history itself is complex,and we need to pay attention to both the people and their ideas in the academic history being narrated and the people telling the academic history and their stances.

关 键 词：明代哲学 第一人 《明儒学案》 道统 

分 类 号：B248[哲学宗教—中国哲学]