论文部分内容阅读
明末,围绕“不孝有三,无后为大”一语而展开的争论,使儒家和天主教孝论的区别得以凸显。在批驳了“不孝有三,无后为大”之后,利玛窦提出“三父”说,抹平了儒家五伦的差异,这在明末部分士大夫看来无疑“悖伦”。为调和儒家和天主教关于孝的观念,利玛窦附会儒家文化,用儒家的价值规范来比附人与上帝的关系。在这一比附中,人与神之间的无限距离这一神学维度隐匿不见。围绕孝论的冲突,另外一个问题得以凸显,那就是天主教重视个体救赎与儒家重视维系血缘亲情之间的张力。对于如何重估这一争论的意义,学界存在两种针锋相对的意见。在解释学和社会学理论视角的洞见下,笔者认为围绕孝论而展开的争论是一场真正意义上的对话。
At the end of the Ming dynasty, the controversy surrounding the phrase “there are three non-filial piety, one after another” is the difference between Confucianism and Catholicism. After refuting the argument that “there are three unfilialities and no one is great,” Matteo Ricci put forward the idea of “three fathers” to smooth out the differences between the Confucianists and the Five Scholars. ". In order to reconcile Confucianism with Catholicism about filial piety, Ricci attaches Confucian culture and uses Confucian values to compare his relationship with God. In this ratio, the theological dimension of infinite distance between man and God is hidden from view. Around the conflict of filial piety, another issue has been highlighted, that is, the Catholic emphasis on individual salvation and Confucian emphasis on maintaining blood ties between the kinship. There are two diametrically opposed opinions on how to reassess the debate. Under the insight of hermeneutics and sociological theories, I think the debate about filial piety is a real dialogue.