道家研討課的作業 -- 莊子人性論觀中對仁義之見

莊子人性論觀中對仁義之見

細讀中國的哲學的歷史，可發現對人性、道德、倫理等議題是花不少篇幅以描述及刻畫它們的重要性的。當然，這與儒家較為偏重人性、道德、倫理相關議題 與長時間作為官方思想派別有關。比如在明清兩代，理學更是作為官學，在獨特，超然的地位。所以在中國文化中，倫理是主流作為精神基礎的存在。這有別於西方 以宗教為精神基礎的不同，令得「人」這本身，就是作為思想基礎的對象，以及目標。而這種以人為本的思想發展，亦是中國對人性重視的原因。自原始部落所崇拜 的宗教對象以後，中國的精神文化開創以來，中國的精神文化就是朝向人文精神這一方向發展的。這種精神文化，還有它的傳承，都在為了對應確實、現實的人生以 及社會的問題而發展出來。這種發展模式，是以實際的，個人所面對的問題作出一連串的觀察接收，思考，以及實證體驗的活動作為應對人生問題的一些工夫。這種 實際、體證的發展就是成就重人的思想模式。從重人的立足點發展下去，往後就出現各種人性論的討論。人性，意指為人之本性、本質。以人性為題之爭論，是以人 性的具體德目層次上展開，往後發展出林林總總的人性論觀點：性善論、性惡論、性無善惡論、性可善可惡論等等。而這些人性論觀點都是在討論關於人性是甚麼的 實有層問題。然而，在作用層下，如何將人性論的觀點合理化，亦是討論人性論問題的重點。這種實有層與作用層的分類方式於儒家有出現，但就並未於道家中作出 分類。以下我稍稍引用牟宗三先生的說法：

在道家，實有層和作用層沒有分別，此一義涵著另一義，就是道家只有「如何」(How)的問題，這還牽涉到其他概念，例如聖、智、仁、義等概念。道德 經裏面有「絕聖棄智」、「絕仁棄義」之語。牽連到聖、智、仁、義這方面，道家只有如何(How)的問題，沒有「是什麼」(What)的問題。這個就是因為 道家的「實有」和「作用」沒有分別。[1]

Modern Chinese Literary Criticism 課的作業

Moving forward: From the construction of Hong Kong Cultural Identity in post-colonial context to the north going imagination

The starting of the Second European colonization wave in 19^th century has brought the European thought and influence over the world. With the western imperialism and colonialism influence, the legacy of these “-ism” still have influence in the 21^st century, namely post-colonialism. Many cultural critics, scholars and social scientists have worked on the study of post-colonialism in various “colonized” places, paying attention on economic, political, geographical ownership ramification and cultural aspects. Scholars have found theories and meta-narrative worked well on many places after being colonized, like African and Indo-European countries. However, when these theories came to describe the post-colonial situation in East Asia, these theories could not be easily generalized in describing the circumstances of China and Taiwan, etc. Short period of occupation, retaining original languages, influence of communism and east-Asian imperialism were the main reasons[1] account for the difference from some other countries in Africa. Among those examples in East-Asia, two easily forgot places: Hong Kong and Macau, have been founded as a particular important and abnormal place. The abnormality came from the returning of the territorial sovereignty to the motherland- China, instead of becoming an independent country or place. This abnormality added the impotency and value of Hong Kong (this essay, I will only focus on Hong Kong according to her global influence) in her special position between Britain’s colonialism and China’s up coming partial totalitarianism governance. According Rey Chow’ s saying: “Between Britain and China, Hong Kong’ s postcoloniality is marked by a double impossibility—it will be impossible to submit to Chinese nationalist/ nativist repossession as it has been impossible to submit to British colonialism.”[2] However, when we compare the pre-handover period for Chow's essay, and the period after handing over of Hong Kong to China in 1997, her description on the emergent Hong Kong Identity and Hong Kong culture can not simply meet current Hong Kong situation on identity and culture. What I am going to do is to tease out the ways and the ambivalence in constructing Hong Kong Identity and then to figure out what is and what lead to the current situation. In doing this, the two main aspects coined in Chow’s essay: root searching and post-modern hybridities will also be my starting way in interpreting the current situation. Hence, I will try to come up with a description for the current situation.