摘要
关于《庄子·渔父篇》之"渔父"形象问题,赵纪彬在《学术界》2013年第3期发表《〈庄子渔父〉相关问题考辨》一文,对"渔父"为范蠡之说加以驳斥,其理由有两个:一、孔子与范蠡不可能有交流活动;二、渔父与范蠡形象不同,范蠡丝毫没有道家思想的痕迹。通过仔细分析,我们发现赵文的论证方式是站不住脚的:其一、《庄子》多寓言,所以从孔子与范蠡没有交集不能推出渔父不是范蠡,因为这只不过是一则寓言,并非实指;其二、范蠡思想与《老子》、《庄子》、《黄帝四经》都有相通之处,所以不能认为范蠡没有道家思想的痕迹。但我们只是反对赵文的论证方式,对于"渔父"为范蠡的说法我们也不认同。
Zhao Jibin's paper called Textual Research on Chuang Tzu Fisherman was published in Academics,NO. 3,2013,in which he refuted the viewpoint that the'fisherman'in Chuang- Tzu was Fan Li. His argument is based on the following two aspects: firstly,it is impossible for Confucius and Fan Li to communicate with each other; secondly,the image of fisherman in Chuang- Tzu is different from that of Fan Li and Fan Li's thought cannot be attributed to Daoism. By analyzing Zhao's paper carefully,we can find that the way of Zhao's argumentation is groundless: firstly,there are so many allegories in Chuang- Tzu and the dialogue between Confucius and the fisherman is also an allegory,so we cannot infer that Fan Li is not the fisherman in Chuang- Tzu just because it is impossible for Confucius and Fan Li to have communications; secondly,the thought of Fan Li has some common with Lao- tzu,Chuang- Tzu and the Four Classics of Huangdi,so we cannot say that Fan Li's thought is not belong to Daoism. However,we just object to the way of argumentation in Zhao's paper and we also disagree the statement that the fisherman in Chuang- Tzu is Fan Li.
出处
《学术界》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第10期121-125,309,共5页
Academics
基金
国家留学基金资助
关键词
《庄子》
渔父
范蠡
赵文
Chuang-Tzu
fisherman
Fan Li
Zhao's Paper
