论文部分内容阅读
黄玉顺提出“生活儒学”的相关论述后,有许多学者对“生活儒学”做出评论,黄玉顺给予回应,形成论辩。通过对这些评论的分析,笔者发现,无论形而上学与现象学之争,还是当代儒学建构之争,论者都认为“生活儒学”是一种哲学形而上学的建构,并基于此而批评生活儒学。而黄玉顺在回应中,承认进行哲学形而上学建构的必然;但通过“生活儒学”的观念层级,破除误解。笔者认为,批评者与回应者的一个“建构共识”引向“前生活儒学”的考量,由此提出进行中国传统形而上学溯源的必要,以期更好地丰富“生活儒学”。
After Putin put forward the related discourse of “Life Confucianism,” many scholars commented on “Life Confucianism,” and Huang Yushun replied and formed an argument. Through the analysis of these comments, the author finds that regardless of the dispute between metaphysics and phenomenology or the controversy over the construction of contemporary Confucianism, the author thinks that “living Confucianism” is a construction of philosophical metaphysics and criticizes life Confucianism . However, in response, Huang Yushun acknowledged the inevitability of carrying out philosophical metaphysical construction; however, he dispelled the misunderstanding through the conceptual hierarchy of “living Confucianism.” The author believes that critics and respondents of a “Constructive Consensus ” lead “pre-life Confucianism ” considerations, which made the need for traceability of Chinese traditional metaphysics in order to better enrich the “life of Confucianism” .