摘要
本文从殷海光与牟宗三关于“自由”的争论入手,分析了两人不同的学术理路与知识背景,以及由此形成的两种迥异其趣的“自由”理念:殷海光接受的是英美经验主义哲学,从逻辑实证主义可证实原则出发,主张将自由限制在公共域,认为政治自由是指一个人不受别人的阻扰而径自行动的范围。而牟宗三的“儒学自由主义”则结合德国唯心主义哲学与儒家心性之学,将自由理解为道德上的“圆善”。本文以为,殷海光与牟宗三自由理念的歧异不仅契合了柏林所谓“内在的”与“外在的”两种自由概念,而且承继了两种不同的近代思潮——科学与玄学之间的观念差异。
This paper inters into the liberalistic thinking of Yin Hai-guang and Mou Zhong-shan by analyzing their different academical background and their different idea of freedom .Yin Hai-guang accepted the philosophy of empiricism which originated from English culture .By the standpoint of logical empiricism, Yin took the freedom for a free space in which the individual could act freely. Mou Zhong-shan's Confucian liberalism combined Germanic spiritualism and Confucianism ,thinking freedom about a moral perfection .This paper thinks that Mou and Yin's idea of freedom answered for the positive and negative freedom of Isaiah Berlin,and inherited the two different modem Chinese trend of thought-science and metaphysics.
出处
《台湾研究集刊》
CSSCI
2006年第3期76-83,共8页
Taiwan Research Journal