Book by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Papers by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
《文化哲學的模型》, 2024
本文聚焦董仲舒的「改制更化」說，並以「道同」、「更化」、「教善」三個關鍵詞，探討漢初儒家面對文化轉型問題時，以承天啟人、繼往開來為旨的文化變革論。該說架構「道之同、變」的兩面，說明文化有變革而無... more 本文聚焦董仲舒的「改制更化」說，並以「道同」、「更化」、「教善」三個關鍵詞，探討漢初儒家面對文化轉型問題時，以承天啟人、繼往開來為旨的文化變革論。該說架構「道之同、變」的兩面，說明文化有變革而無興替的理據；道變的癥結落於教化之失，則進一步開展出文化變革以「復修教化」為途徑、習俗為成果的具體論說；而教化所以能成為文化變革的關鍵，在於教化可以成就民性之善，是承天啟人的必要之舉。由此，本文呈現董仲舒如何以天人分工而合作的視野，論說人力在文化變革中的作用；也從「重政」而非心性論的角度，重探董仲舒的天人觀與教化觀。
政大中文學報, 2024
本文以董仲舒「改制更化」說中蘊含的文化變革問題為基礎，比較康 有為《春秋董氏學》中的「孔子改制」說與蘇輿《春秋繁露義證》中的「改 制立義」說，探討二家如何在清末世變中論述「道」的同、變之理。藉此... more 本文以董仲舒「改制更化」說中蘊含的文化變革問題為基礎，比較康 有為《春秋董氏學》中的「孔子改制」說與蘇輿《春秋繁露義證》中的「改 制立義」說，探討二家如何在清末世變中論述「道」的同、變之理。藉此， 本文回應當前學界對康、蘇論爭的解釋爭議，析論康有為及蘇輿面對世變 的取徑異同，也呈顯儒家改制說的文化變革思維。
This article discusses the debate in the late Qing Dynasty between Kang Yowei 康有為 and Su Yu 蘇輿 on the theory of “Gai-zhi 改制” which could be traced back to Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 in the Western Han Dynasty and implies the issue of basis of culture reformation. By comparing Kang’s and Su’s explanations of the reasons that “Dao 道” is not only unchangeable but also changeable, this article responds the current discussions about the Kang’s and Su’s different perspectives on the culture transformation, and also presents a Confucian way of thinking on the compromise between culture conservation and radical abolition.
清華中文學報
《清華中文學報》17 (2017.06) http://www.cl.nthu.edu.tw/files/13-1278-120830-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
本文聚焦於叔孫通與陸賈如... more 《清華中文學報》17 (2017.06) http://www.cl.nthu.edu.tw/files/13-1278-120830-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
本文聚焦於叔孫通與陸賈如何在漢初之世回應儒家發展所遭遇的困境。先秦儒家政治思想中對於政治權力結構與權力正當性的部分觀點，在戰國秦漢政治體制轉換之際，出現思想理論與現實發展歧異的問題。這個問題結合戰國以來對於儒家「好古無用」、「以古亂今」的負面評價，導致儒家在秦漢之際面臨與新政權的衝突。叔孫通與陸賈故而各以不同方式面對儒家理想中之古道與現實發展之今政的歧異，或使儒術與儒者得以調適於新政體制，或使儒學得以新的角色定位，繼續為漢代政治指出應然方向，展現儒家「因世權行」的可能性，恢復並開啟了儒家在新時代的發展。
This article discusses how the Confucian scholars Shusun Tong 叔孫通 and Lu Jia 陸賈 reformed traditional Confucian discourse in an effort to resolve conflicts with early Han political authorities. In the Warring States period, there was widespread criticism of Confucian scholars’ veneration of the legendary golden age of antiquity. Moreover, both Legalist scholars and the emperors of the Qin and early Han dynasties regarded speech about the ancient sage-kings as a challenge to their authority, and as a result, they castigated Confucians for their propensity for “referring to the past to criticize the present.” In response, Shusun Tong and Lu Jia worked to reform Confucian political philosophy in terms of structure of power and legitimacy of authority respectively. Their efforts not only adapted Confucianism to the new polity but also resumed the impact of Confucianism in a new political era.
東吳中文線上學術論文
The Supportive and Questioning Saint Followers: On the Common Image of Tzu-Lu(子路) and Tzu-Kung(子貢... more The Supportive and Questioning Saint Followers: On the Common Image of Tzu-Lu(子路) and Tzu-Kung(子貢) in the Genre Confucian Stories
Book Review by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Other Publications by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Conferences, Talks by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Dissertation, Thesis by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
This dissertation examines the statements and comments toward Confucius, which build Confucius’ i... more This dissertation examines the statements and comments toward Confucius, which build Confucius’ image and standing during the Warring States period to the late Western Han. Though many studies have mentioned the various presentations of Confucius presenting in this period, this study attempts to investigate the reasons that people presented “Confucius” in different ways and the meanings of these various presentations in early China’s intellectual history. It takes three parts to state the results of this dissertation:
First, since the Warring States period, “Confucius” was not only an index sign which signified a person named Confucius, but also a symbol sign. Therefore, when people described, statement, or commented “Confucius,” what they focus on might be the meaning that “Confucius” symbolized in the historical context they were being. The meanings of “Confucius” might change with the historical context. During the Warring States period, “Confucius” symbolized an extraordinary person, who knows everything and being good at commenting on anything; in the Western Han, “Confucius” symbolized an ancient sage, who made sacred canon (the Five Classics) and left his teaching for future generations and the next dynasty.
Second, although the honorific titles, such as “sage” or “uncrowned king,” were likely due to people’s admiration, they were actually the result of people’s discussion on “Confucius.” Scholars connected the symbolic significance of “Confucius” with other concept(s), making “Confucius” involve into those issues they concerned. During the Warring States period, scholars connected “Confucius” with “sage,” for discussing if an omniscient sage could share the power of formulating policies. In the Western Han, Confucian scholars connect “Confucius” with “king” and “heaven,” for discussing if a sage of humble birth could guide the emperor(s) and the political system of Han dynasty. As a result, “Confucius” was addressed as a “sage” in the pre-Qin, and then as an “uncrowned king” in the Western Han.
Third, as acts of “saying something,” interpreting “Confucius” had different meanings and effects in different historical contexts. During the Warring States period, while scholars tended to make “Confucius” being open to interpretation, they were doing interpretive dialogue by discoursing on “Confucius.” In the Western Han, while Confucian scholars and the authorities tend to set the role of “Confucius” as an intermediary, interpreting “Confucius” became an intersubjective activity.
In summary, this dissertation examines the various and variable presentations of “Confucius” from the Warring States period to the Western Han, explains the reason of changing, and survey the train of thought in history. It presents why and how Confucius, who was not only an embodiment of Dao but also an intermediary between Dao and politics (or between scholars and the authorities), has such significant standing in Chinese history.
本文以「孔子弟子」為研究對象，探討孔子之下第一批儒家從學者對於孔子之學的發展。主要藉由觀察孔子弟子的儒學發展，分析前人所謂「弟子分化」的關鍵點與整體趨向，並討論孔子弟子對於儒學、乃至先秦學術所造... more 本文以「孔子弟子」為研究對象，探討孔子之下第一批儒家從學者對於孔子之學的發展。主要藉由觀察孔子弟子的儒學發展，分析前人所謂「弟子分化」的關鍵點與整體趨向，並討論孔子弟子對於儒學、乃至先秦學術所造成的影響。除推證、釐清前人對於孔子弟子的相關論述，展現孔子弟子於儒學發展的重要作為以外，亦期能稍以增補戰國儒學傳承的線索。
全文共分五章：一、「緒論」，說明本研究形構的背景；二、「孔子弟子從學的背景與表現」，從社會背景、事行表現與從學情況三主題，觀察孔子弟子與孔子之教的連繫情況，並建立對於孔門從學者的具體認識；三、「孔子弟子儒學發展的趨向」，自政治參與、六藝之學以及德行之學三面向，討論孔子弟子儒學發展的情況，同時觀察其整體趨勢；四、「孔子弟子儒學發展的影響」，根據前章所得，分就儒學理論、儒學實踐、戰國學術三方面，說明孔子弟子儒學發展的影響。五、「結論」，總結本文研究成果與未來展望。相關資料整理，則另列於「附表」。
Popularization by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Uploads
Book by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
https://www.swfc.com.tw/products_detail/2397.htm
Papers by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
This article discusses the debate in the late Qing Dynasty between Kang Yowei 康有為 and Su Yu 蘇輿 on the theory of “Gai-zhi 改制” which could be traced back to Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 in the Western Han Dynasty and implies the issue of basis of culture reformation. By comparing Kang’s and Su’s explanations of the reasons that “Dao 道” is not only unchangeable but also changeable, this article responds the current discussions about the Kang’s and Su’s different perspectives on the culture transformation, and also presents a Confucian way of thinking on the compromise between culture conservation and radical abolition.
摘要
本文探討西漢武、昭、宣三朝尊儒政策思維的發展，並聚焦武帝的「緣飾以儒術」，如何轉出儒家思想能夠參與政治運作的宣、元之世。全文分三部分：首先以「離析儒家道、術兩面」，總挈尊儒政策最初的緣飾思維，並指出武帝以君主集權為宗旨的根本考慮。其次藉由鹽鐵會議中的孔子無用之辯，指出緣飾思維的制度化困難，如何使得儒家可能以其內在張力，反抗政策的離析。繼而，本文分析石渠閣會議的政治意義，指出宣帝如何既延續武帝政策的根本綱領，也修正緣飾思維的未盡之處，遂使儒學與君主集權政體得以嵌合。由此，本文指出：西漢的尊儒政策，雖顯得糾結周折，然其間變化並非出自個別君王的扭轉，而是在政策延續性的要求下作調整，其內在思維實皆本於秦漢新政體的君主集權綱領，脈絡相承。
本文聚焦於叔孫通與陸賈如何在漢初之世回應儒家發展所遭遇的困境。先秦儒家政治思想中對於政治權力結構與權力正當性的部分觀點，在戰國秦漢政治體制轉換之際，出現思想理論與現實發展歧異的問題。這個問題結合戰國以來對於儒家「好古無用」、「以古亂今」的負面評價，導致儒家在秦漢之際面臨與新政權的衝突。叔孫通與陸賈故而各以不同方式面對儒家理想中之古道與現實發展之今政的歧異，或使儒術與儒者得以調適於新政體制，或使儒學得以新的角色定位，繼續為漢代政治指出應然方向，展現儒家「因世權行」的可能性，恢復並開啟了儒家在新時代的發展。
This article discusses how the Confucian scholars Shusun Tong 叔孫通 and Lu Jia 陸賈 reformed traditional Confucian discourse in an effort to resolve conflicts with early Han political authorities. In the Warring States period, there was widespread criticism of Confucian scholars’ veneration of the legendary golden age of antiquity. Moreover, both Legalist scholars and the emperors of the Qin and early Han dynasties regarded speech about the ancient sage-kings as a challenge to their authority, and as a result, they castigated Confucians for their propensity for “referring to the past to criticize the present.” In response, Shusun Tong and Lu Jia worked to reform Confucian political philosophy in terms of structure of power and legitimacy of authority respectively. Their efforts not only adapted Confucianism to the new polity but also resumed the impact of Confucianism in a new political era.
Book Review by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Other Publications by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Conferences, Talks by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
Dissertation, Thesis by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
First, since the Warring States period, “Confucius” was not only an index sign which signified a person named Confucius, but also a symbol sign. Therefore, when people described, statement, or commented “Confucius,” what they focus on might be the meaning that “Confucius” symbolized in the historical context they were being. The meanings of “Confucius” might change with the historical context. During the Warring States period, “Confucius” symbolized an extraordinary person, who knows everything and being good at commenting on anything; in the Western Han, “Confucius” symbolized an ancient sage, who made sacred canon (the Five Classics) and left his teaching for future generations and the next dynasty.
Second, although the honorific titles, such as “sage” or “uncrowned king,” were likely due to people’s admiration, they were actually the result of people’s discussion on “Confucius.” Scholars connected the symbolic significance of “Confucius” with other concept(s), making “Confucius” involve into those issues they concerned. During the Warring States period, scholars connected “Confucius” with “sage,” for discussing if an omniscient sage could share the power of formulating policies. In the Western Han, Confucian scholars connect “Confucius” with “king” and “heaven,” for discussing if a sage of humble birth could guide the emperor(s) and the political system of Han dynasty. As a result, “Confucius” was addressed as a “sage” in the pre-Qin, and then as an “uncrowned king” in the Western Han.
Third, as acts of “saying something,” interpreting “Confucius” had different meanings and effects in different historical contexts. During the Warring States period, while scholars tended to make “Confucius” being open to interpretation, they were doing interpretive dialogue by discoursing on “Confucius.” In the Western Han, while Confucian scholars and the authorities tend to set the role of “Confucius” as an intermediary, interpreting “Confucius” became an intersubjective activity.
In summary, this dissertation examines the various and variable presentations of “Confucius” from the Warring States period to the Western Han, explains the reason of changing, and survey the train of thought in history. It presents why and how Confucius, who was not only an embodiment of Dao but also an intermediary between Dao and politics (or between scholars and the authorities), has such significant standing in Chinese history.
全文共分五章：一、「緒論」，說明本研究形構的背景；二、「孔子弟子從學的背景與表現」，從社會背景、事行表現與從學情況三主題，觀察孔子弟子與孔子之教的連繫情況，並建立對於孔門從學者的具體認識；三、「孔子弟子儒學發展的趨向」，自政治參與、六藝之學以及德行之學三面向，討論孔子弟子儒學發展的情況，同時觀察其整體趨勢；四、「孔子弟子儒學發展的影響」，根據前章所得，分就儒學理論、儒學實踐、戰國學術三方面，說明孔子弟子儒學發展的影響。五、「結論」，總結本文研究成果與未來展望。相關資料整理，則另列於「附表」。
Popularization by Hsiao-yun (Dawn) Wu
https://www.swfc.com.tw/products_detail/2397.htm
This article discusses the debate in the late Qing Dynasty between Kang Yowei 康有為 and Su Yu 蘇輿 on the theory of “Gai-zhi 改制” which could be traced back to Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 in the Western Han Dynasty and implies the issue of basis of culture reformation. By comparing Kang’s and Su’s explanations of the reasons that “Dao 道” is not only unchangeable but also changeable, this article responds the current discussions about the Kang’s and Su’s different perspectives on the culture transformation, and also presents a Confucian way of thinking on the compromise between culture conservation and radical abolition.
摘要
本文探討西漢武、昭、宣三朝尊儒政策思維的發展，並聚焦武帝的「緣飾以儒術」，如何轉出儒家思想能夠參與政治運作的宣、元之世。全文分三部分：首先以「離析儒家道、術兩面」，總挈尊儒政策最初的緣飾思維，並指出武帝以君主集權為宗旨的根本考慮。其次藉由鹽鐵會議中的孔子無用之辯，指出緣飾思維的制度化困難，如何使得儒家可能以其內在張力，反抗政策的離析。繼而，本文分析石渠閣會議的政治意義，指出宣帝如何既延續武帝政策的根本綱領，也修正緣飾思維的未盡之處，遂使儒學與君主集權政體得以嵌合。由此，本文指出：西漢的尊儒政策，雖顯得糾結周折，然其間變化並非出自個別君王的扭轉，而是在政策延續性的要求下作調整，其內在思維實皆本於秦漢新政體的君主集權綱領，脈絡相承。
本文聚焦於叔孫通與陸賈如何在漢初之世回應儒家發展所遭遇的困境。先秦儒家政治思想中對於政治權力結構與權力正當性的部分觀點，在戰國秦漢政治體制轉換之際，出現思想理論與現實發展歧異的問題。這個問題結合戰國以來對於儒家「好古無用」、「以古亂今」的負面評價，導致儒家在秦漢之際面臨與新政權的衝突。叔孫通與陸賈故而各以不同方式面對儒家理想中之古道與現實發展之今政的歧異，或使儒術與儒者得以調適於新政體制，或使儒學得以新的角色定位，繼續為漢代政治指出應然方向，展現儒家「因世權行」的可能性，恢復並開啟了儒家在新時代的發展。
This article discusses how the Confucian scholars Shusun Tong 叔孫通 and Lu Jia 陸賈 reformed traditional Confucian discourse in an effort to resolve conflicts with early Han political authorities. In the Warring States period, there was widespread criticism of Confucian scholars’ veneration of the legendary golden age of antiquity. Moreover, both Legalist scholars and the emperors of the Qin and early Han dynasties regarded speech about the ancient sage-kings as a challenge to their authority, and as a result, they castigated Confucians for their propensity for “referring to the past to criticize the present.” In response, Shusun Tong and Lu Jia worked to reform Confucian political philosophy in terms of structure of power and legitimacy of authority respectively. Their efforts not only adapted Confucianism to the new polity but also resumed the impact of Confucianism in a new political era.
First, since the Warring States period, “Confucius” was not only an index sign which signified a person named Confucius, but also a symbol sign. Therefore, when people described, statement, or commented “Confucius,” what they focus on might be the meaning that “Confucius” symbolized in the historical context they were being. The meanings of “Confucius” might change with the historical context. During the Warring States period, “Confucius” symbolized an extraordinary person, who knows everything and being good at commenting on anything; in the Western Han, “Confucius” symbolized an ancient sage, who made sacred canon (the Five Classics) and left his teaching for future generations and the next dynasty.
Second, although the honorific titles, such as “sage” or “uncrowned king,” were likely due to people’s admiration, they were actually the result of people’s discussion on “Confucius.” Scholars connected the symbolic significance of “Confucius” with other concept(s), making “Confucius” involve into those issues they concerned. During the Warring States period, scholars connected “Confucius” with “sage,” for discussing if an omniscient sage could share the power of formulating policies. In the Western Han, Confucian scholars connect “Confucius” with “king” and “heaven,” for discussing if a sage of humble birth could guide the emperor(s) and the political system of Han dynasty. As a result, “Confucius” was addressed as a “sage” in the pre-Qin, and then as an “uncrowned king” in the Western Han.
Third, as acts of “saying something,” interpreting “Confucius” had different meanings and effects in different historical contexts. During the Warring States period, while scholars tended to make “Confucius” being open to interpretation, they were doing interpretive dialogue by discoursing on “Confucius.” In the Western Han, while Confucian scholars and the authorities tend to set the role of “Confucius” as an intermediary, interpreting “Confucius” became an intersubjective activity.
In summary, this dissertation examines the various and variable presentations of “Confucius” from the Warring States period to the Western Han, explains the reason of changing, and survey the train of thought in history. It presents why and how Confucius, who was not only an embodiment of Dao but also an intermediary between Dao and politics (or between scholars and the authorities), has such significant standing in Chinese history.
全文共分五章：一、「緒論」，說明本研究形構的背景；二、「孔子弟子從學的背景與表現」，從社會背景、事行表現與從學情況三主題，觀察孔子弟子與孔子之教的連繫情況，並建立對於孔門從學者的具體認識；三、「孔子弟子儒學發展的趨向」，自政治參與、六藝之學以及德行之學三面向，討論孔子弟子儒學發展的情況，同時觀察其整體趨勢；四、「孔子弟子儒學發展的影響」，根據前章所得，分就儒學理論、儒學實踐、戰國學術三方面，說明孔子弟子儒學發展的影響。五、「結論」，總結本文研究成果與未來展望。相關資料整理，則另列於「附表」。