名、字與概念範疇

這裡作者想要申論五個重點：一則說明義理有時可以先於訓詁，有時則訓詁宜先於義理，並無確定的途徑。二則借章太炎《原名》一文的論述說明“名”的建立與系統化，和人類對天地萬物的認知活動密切相關，研究“名”應該從認知的過程與限制思考先秦諸子開展其“名”學的途徑。三則借《郭店楚簡‧大一生水》“名字章”之說，析論“名”與“字”的範疇。四則引張岱年《中國古典哲學概念範疇要論》，評述“名”、“字”、“概念”、“範疇”的糾葛，認為四者難以區分，亦不宜勉強區分，因為漢字具形音義統一的特性，“義”常與形音相糾纏。當前要務是建立一個簡便精準的名稱，以統攝諸名。五則舉“中庸”、“獨”、“集義、集虛”、“性善”等四個例子，說明研究範疇，不可囿於學派派別，而忽視了不同學派對於同一範疇或故意展現不同詮釋的可能。
This paper aims to discuss the scopes of names, key words, concepts and conceptual framework in Chinese philosophy, including the effectiveness of philological approach and philosophical approach,the formation of "names" and how it links to the nature of epistemology, as well as the differences between "ming" (names) and "zi" (words) in the pre-Qin period. The author also reexamines the methodology declared by Zhang Dai-nian in his famous book A Concise Discussion in Concepts and Conceptual Framework in Chinese Classical Philosophy. To illustrate the complexity of the topic, the author discusses four examples on how different schools/philosophers use the same concepts/conceptual framework to induce different meanings/thoughts. Copyright © 2017 杭州師範大學.