孟子与董仲舒论“圣人之善”的比较分析 = A comparative analysis between the "Sage's Goodness" as proposed by Mencius and Dong Zhong Shu

• Main Author: 范舒玲 Wan, Cassandra Sue-Lynn
• Other Authors: Ngoi Guat Peng
• Format: Final Year Project
• Language: Chinese
• Published: 2014
• Subjects: DRNTU::Humanities
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/55644
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

儒家思想在公元前 136 年儒学被奉为国教以后，便很多时候在中国悠久的历史中都维持着其地位；而这个情况一直维持到 1905 年。推行儒教为国教的尊儒运动是从西汉儒者及大臣董仲舒的势头，即指他的地位和理论，而得到其冲力。如此说来，儒家思想自孔子以来最初真正能够在政坛上发挥其作用的是在西汉董仲舒（身于前 179 年－前 104 年）“罢黜百家，独尊儒术”的统治时期，达到儒家们自孔子以来周游列国而为了“得君行道”的目的。然而，虽然董仲舒是继承了孔孟的人文思想，他所倡导的人性论却是削弱了人的内在以及独立的道德主体性。因此，董仲舒与孟子的人性论，包括了人性“善”和“圣人之善”都有着分歧的观点；而本论文便是想通过了解他们二人当时的社会政治环境对他们思想所产生的影响，从而获悉董仲舒与孟子之间对“圣人之善”各自的主张，以及董仲舒是如何看待孟子的人性之“善”。After Confucian thought (儒家思想，ru’jia si’xiang) has been regarded as the state ideology in 136 B.C, it has managed to retain such a position for many a time in the long course of Chinese history, and this state of affairs lasted until 1905. The impetus of the movement to elevate the status of Confucian thought in the state was brought about by the high position and theory of an esteemed court official in the Western Han dynasty, Dong Zhong Shu (董仲舒，Dong Zhong Shu, 179 A.D.－104 A.D.).As such, since the time of Confucius (孔子, Kongzi), Confucian thought has only managed to truly gain a place of standing during the Western Han dynasty,when Dong Zhong Shu pushed for the sole elevation of the status of Confucian thought via the rejection of “the School of a Hundred Thought” (百家思想, bai’jia si’xiang). This elevation in status implies that he managed to achieve the goal that Confucius and other disciples of his had been trying to do in sojourning around the feudal states – winning over the ruler and hence being able to realise the school of thought (得君行道, de’jun xing’dao). However, although Dong Zhong Shu succeeded Confucius’ and Mencius’ (孟子, Mengzi) humanistic ideas, his own discourse regarding the human nature(人性, ren’xing) has undermined the moral authority which stems from an individual’s inherent and independent morality. Therefore, since both Dong Zhong Shu and Mencius are divergent in their views regarding human nature, which includes the “goodness” (善, shan) of human nature and “the sage’s goodness”(圣人之善, sheng’ren zhi’shan), this essay hopes to shed light on how the socio-political environment had influenced their views respectively. From there, it is possible to gain deeper insight on how both of them regard “the sage’s goodness”, and how Dong Zhong Shu would assess Mencius’ views on the “goodness” of human nature.