「東亞近世世界觀的發展」國際研討會工作計畫

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORLDVIEWS IN EARLY MODERN EAST ASIA

A Preamble

臺灣大學吳展良

1、會議背景：

1：1二○○四年八月二十日、二十一日，我們成功地召開了「東亞近世世界觀的形成」國際學術研討會，該場會議集結了十八位來自世界各地的知名學者一同參與討論與交流，其結果極為豐碩，而會議的論文也將集結成冊，分別在美國與台灣出版。今年的研討會將延續去年的主題，集中探討十四至十九世紀東亞世界觀之發展。「東亞近世世界觀的發展」是認識東亞世界傳統文化的一個關鍵課題：西方學界對於worldview或Weltanschauung的研究由來已久，然而在東亞學界，有關自身的傳統世界觀卻是一個長期受到忽視的題目。[1]這與東亞的傳統世界觀長期被東亞人士視為落後過時有關，然而對於這個題目深入的研究，卻很可能是解開傳統思想與文化之特性的一把鑰匙。世界觀主要是指一個人或一群人對於宇宙人生最根本性也最整體性的預設及看法，這些預設及看法大致界定了人所認識到的世界之基本性質與範圍，並滲透入其一切思想與行為之中，而對其人生的各方面有很深遠的影響。十九世紀後期，隨著西方科學與實證的世界觀之輸入，並有鑑於東西國力與文化間的巨大對比，東亞學者對於傳統世界觀的批評日益增多。二十世紀之後，學術體制全面西化，西式教育逐漸取代傳統教育，學者們對於來自西方的現代世界觀更是全面崇信。唯物、進化、元素(elements, atoms)與自然律則(laws of nature)觀，代表了新時代主流世界觀的基本特質。科學、理性、邏輯與分析方法則為相應於新世界觀的唯一合法的思維方式。至於傳統的世界觀，則成為批判與嘲諷的對象。東亞思想史上的一個新時代，於焉形成。

1：2 新的世界觀既然取代了傳統的世界觀成為主流，東亞學者不免用新觀點對於傳統作全面的批判。傳統世界觀中的主要成分，例如氣化、陰陽、五行、道、無極、太極、天命、天理、體用、本末、心、性、命、數、時位、聖人、禮、皇極、鬼神、感應、災異等等，往往被視為迷信或思想不清，而一概遭到排斥。近代中、日、韓的新文化或唯新啟蒙運動中以科學之名對於對於傳統的批判，其實正是一場以現代世界觀取代傳統世界觀的運動。傳統世界觀既深刻反映乃至主導了東亞人士的思維方式與語言，於是傳統思想與語言運用所及的一切，也如其背後的世界觀，以不科學而直接或間接受到批評與排斥。至於仍被視為有價值的傳統，則當然也必須以新的觀點重新定義之。於是，二十世紀東亞學術研究的主流，是以西方現代的世界觀與語言來批判或重新詮釋傳統。這在東亞世界現代化的過程中，誠有其必要，在學術研究上，使用新方法與新觀點亦產生極多的創獲，然而流弊亦甚多。其中最主要的問題，便是現代人對於主導前人生活與心靈活動的許多基本理路，較不容易有真切的理解。學者所看到與所能理解的，大多透過西方的框架，而遺落了許多內在於傳統的理路與事物。這也使得古人的許多言行與文字，對於現代人而言，常難以理解又非常隔閡。這並不必然表示古人與今人活在截然不同的心靈世界中，只是至少意味著雙方有不少重要的乃至根本性的差異。這也並不表示我們不能用現代與西方的語言或方法來研究古人，重點是我們首先必需盡量認識這些重要乃至根本性的差異。

於此同時，依然有少數東亞的學者，力圖跳脫出西方現代世界觀與思維方式的限制，以發掘東亞思想與文化的特質。他們或舊學深湛，或深入西方學術，同時善於運用比較東西的方法，從而對傳統世界觀提出了不少深入的見解。同一時期的西方學人，因為比較不受反傳統意識型態的限制，並對「東方特性」容易產生自然的興趣與認識，對東亞的傳統世界觀亦經常提出不少客觀而深刻的看法。其中如梁漱溟、錢穆、城户幡太郎、中村元、張光直，余英時，林毓生，杜維明，李亦園，張灝，M. Granet, Joseph Needham, F. S. C. Northrop, Frederick W. Mote, Wm. Theodore de Bary, A. C. Graham等前輩與當代學人的成就，尤為學界所重視。八零年代以降，伴隨著現代化理論的落潮，學界對於前述問題又重新提出反省。學術與文化上的西方中心主義一再被批判。時至今日，尋找傳統歷史文化與社會自身的發展理路與構造原理，而不再是簡單地套用西方的模式與概念，似乎已成為新時代人文與社會學科研究的一種新趨向。在此背景下，關於傳統世界觀中個別命題乃至整體性質的研究性文章，亦日益增加。然而在西方世界觀與思維方式的長期宰制下，當代從小受現代教育的學者，事實上都需要經過長期而艱困的努力，才能深入傳統世界觀的堂奧。若不確實走過這一過程，我們對於傳統的思想、語言與文化，在很大的程度上都難免是隔漠的。正因為如此，傳統世界觀的研究，即使經過前述學人的開拓，目前似乎仍在初步的階段。本研究的方向，即在於用現代的學術方法與語言，深入研究傳統世界觀的發展及特性。藉以深入認識傳統的世界觀，並溝通傳統與現代，從而對於東西方的歷史文化，都能有更進一步地理解。

2、會議主題與宗旨

2：1本次研討會將延續去年的主題，而集中探討十四至十九世紀東亞世界觀之發展。所包含的範圍甚為廣闊，儒、釋、道、法、陰陽、術數諸家、中國歷代政治、經濟、社會、文化、學術的發展，以及日、韓、越南諸國的特殊思想文化，都是塑造東亞傳統世界觀之要素。大體而言，東亞近世的世界觀似乎以儒學為中心，並融入了釋、道、法、陰陽、術數、日、韓、越南諸家的思想。其所涉及的領域極多，諸如天道、天命、祭祀、天人、術數、醫、武術、樂、律、曆、感應、施報等思想固然直接表現出古人的世界觀，而政治、經濟、社會、學術、文化等思想的各方面，亦莫不以世界觀為其重要的基礎。[2]其所涉及範圍既極廣闊，難以窮盡，不能不首先將注意力集中於「各個主要領域」所內涵的「世界觀」的基本特質，希望經過學者充分的研究與對話，能進一步探索是否有所謂時代性或時代主流的「世界觀」。學者的背景與訓練個人不同，對各自領域中所呈現的「對於宇宙人生最根本性也最整體性的預設及看法」之見解也難免不同。我們不求其一致，然而我們相信同一時代，所謂同一大文化區（東亞世界均深受儒、釋、道、法、陰陽、術數的影響）內的人們，應該享有不少共通的世界觀，這是我們將東亞世界當成一個單位來研究的原因。作為第二次的研討會，我們將集中探索十四至十九世紀東亞各國世界觀形成的過程、在各個不同領域的展現、及其基本特質。古人的世界觀與現代西方乃至東亞世界觀的異同及關係，相信會引起參與者熱烈的討論。當然，作為一個學術研究，我們並不預設任何固定或二元對立的關係。

2：2本次研討會採取多元觀點探討東亞的世界觀：前人論傳統世界觀通常有一元的傾向，然而作為一個現代的研究者，我們不能從一元的假設出發來研究這個問題。相反的，我們必須從具體、多樣的基礎出發，從不同時期、不同領域所發生的複雜現象中，分別檢視其中所含的「世界觀」，如此才能使本研究擁有堅強的經驗性基礎。無論其最後的結果趨於一元或多元，或一多之間的某種特殊關係，都是我們所應當接受的。簡言之，本題目中的「世界觀」，是從一個複數而不是單數的角度出發，來研究各領域中的具體現象。因此更有需要邀集各方面對此問題有深刻研究的學人，來共同努力，以認識前人世界觀的全貌。本研究計畫將先從東亞近世最重要的思想家與流派入手。以儒學為中心，兼顧釋、道、法、陰陽、術數諸家的思想，以及日、韓、越南諸國的特殊思想與文化。在分析的架構與觀念上，將用現代的語言，從比較東西世界觀的角度出發，以釐清東亞近世世界觀的基本性質及其形成的背景。

3、執行方式

3：1邀請對前述問題有深刻研究的海內外學人，於二零零五年八月五日與六日在國立台灣大學舉行兩天的國際研討會。

3：2論文可用中文或英文書寫，會議亦將以中文或英文進行。論文字數以一萬至兩萬字為原則。會後鼓勵論文單獨發表，並將組織及翻譯合適的論文，經審查後集結出書。

3：3本中心可負擔海外學者開會期間的的食宿、交通及經濟艙來回機票。機票上限以與會者所在地區到台北的直線旅程來回經濟艙票價為主（依據與會者所持之票根為準）：歐洲地區每人補助上限為新台幣45,000元；美國方面，東岸地區每人補助上限為新台幣40,000元，西岸地區每人補助上限為新台幣35,000元；大陸地區每人補助上限為新台幣23,500元；香港地區每人補助上限為新台幣9,500元 (機票部分請先自行購買，而後於會議期間由本中心付還。) 然而海外學者若能向本身機構申請上述部分或全部經費，本中心亦深表歡迎。

3：4論文研究領域：

1. 綜合─

2. 儒 ─

3. 釋 ─

4. 道，內丹─

5. 政治 ─

6. 社會組織 ─

7. 教育體系及思想─

8. 文學─

9. 身體：醫、武術 ─

10. 音樂─

11. 藝術─

12. 建築 ─

13. 科學史、天文曆法—

14. 陰陽、術數、感應─

15. 宗教鬼神祭祀─

*非常歡迎各種建議與批評，來函請寄會議籌備人：台大歷史系教授吳展良 (wuwei@ntu.edu.tw)。

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT THE WORLDVIEWS IN EARLY MODERN EAST ASIA

A Preamble

1. Conference Background

1:1 In August 2004, we had successfully held the International Conference on the Formation of the Worldviews in Early Modern East Asia. We had 18 renowned colleagues from all over the world to discuss the important issue of the worldviews in early modern East Asia, and two volumes of collected papers of the conference will be published in U.S.A. and Taiwan. This year we will continue the same theme but focus on the period between 14~19 centuries. The development of the worldviews in early modern East Asia is a crucial problem for understanding the traditional East Asian culture. The Western academy enjoys a long history of research on the concept of Weltanschauung, or worldview, but in East Asian intellectual circles the issue of the traditional worldview has long been neglected. This stems from the tendency of many Asians to regard the traditional worldview as somehow backward or outdated, but in-depth research on this issue is likely a key to revealing the character of traditional thought and culture. The importance of the worldviews or worldview is that it points to an individual or group’s most basic views and presuppositions about the universe and human existence. Since these views and presuppositions largely define the character and scope of the world as understood by the ancients, and these understandings completely permeate thought and behavior, they have truly profound influence. In the latter nineteenth century, as the Western “scientific worldview” by turns entered East Asia, and there was a large-scale comparison of national power between East and West, East Asian scholars’ criticism of the traditional East Asian worldview mounted day by day. By the early twentieth century, as Western-style education gradually replaced the traditional system, scholars had adopted an even more reverential attitude toward the worldview of the modern West. Materialism, progressive evolution, atomism, and the conception of the laws of nature represented the basic nature of the new era’s dominant worldview. Science, rationality, logic and analytical method became mutually reinforcing parts of this new worldview’s only legitimate mode of thought, while the traditional worldviews became a target of criticism and ridicule. With this, a new period in East Asian intellectual history began to take shape.

1:2 Since the new worldview totally supplanted the traditional worldviews as the dominant paradigm, scholars could not avoid using these new concepts to conduct a severe critique of tradition. They could not avoid looking upon basic elements of the traditional worldviews, such as qi, yin-yang, the five phases (wuxing), No Ultimate (wuji), Taiji, the Mandate of Heaven, the Way of Heaven, body/nature and function (ti and yong), Nature (xing), fate (ming), figure/destiny (shu), sage, rite/manner (li), ghosts and spirits, inductance (ganying) and providential phenomena and disasters (zaiyi) as superstition or irrational thought, to the extent of excluding them from discussion. The Chinese, Japanese, and Korean New Culture and pro-Enlightenment movements of the modern historical era used the rubric of “science” to critique tradition, and in fact sought to replace this older framework with a modern Weltanschauung. However, the traditional worldview was profound enough to dominate the language and mode of thought of East Asians, and traditional thought and language were applied to almost everything; hence, traditional culture as a whole was criticized and stigmatized. Not surprisingly, those traditions still considered valuable were necessarily redefined using new concepts.

During the twentieth century, the dominant trend in East Asian academic research was to use the language and worldview of the modern West to reevaluate or reinterpret East Asian tradition, without a real understanding of the basic differences and relations between the worldviews and linguisticality of the East and West. During the process of modernization in East Asia, this was truly important. In academic research, new methodology and new concepts produced a great many new findings, but abuse of the modern worldview was also great. The most important problem, then, is that it is relatively difficult for people of the modern era to accurately understand a great many of the basic thought processes and “principles” that governed the lifestyle and mental activities of people in the past. Most of that which scholars examine and are able to understand passes through a Western framework and thus not a few traditional thought processes and other aspects are lost. This often makes many of the words, statements, and writings of the ancients difficult for people of the modern era to grasp, and sometimes they are totally misunderstood. This is not to suggest that individuals of the modern and pre-modern periods exist in absolutely different worlds, but at a minimum it implies a number of important, perhaps fundamental, differences. Again, I am not arguing that we cannot use modern or Western language and methodology to research the non-Western world; rather my point is that we must first strive to recognize and understand these basic distinctions.

At the same time, there are still a small number of East Asian scholars striving to transcend the limitations of the worldview and modes of thought of the modern West in order to discover the particularistic character of East Asian thought and culture. Either solidly trained in traditional studies or Western learning, they effectively applied a comparative methodology to East and West and thus have arrived at more than a few important discoveries. During the same period, Western scholars relatively unfettered by the desire to debunk traditional Asian ideology readily developed their natural interest in Asian characteristics and offered insights of great importance. Academia has in particular valued the contributions of earlier scholars and contemporary researchers such as Liang Shuming, Qian Mu, M. Granet, Joseph Needham, F. S. C. Northrop, Frederick W. Mote, Wm. Theodore de Bary, A. C. Graham, Zhang Guan-zhi, Yu Ying-shih, Lin Yu-sheng, Tu Weiming, Li Yiyuan, Chang Hao. Since the 1980s, when modernization theory began to lose its hold on the academy, scholars began a self-reflexive contemplation of the previous questions. Academic and cultural Euro -centrism has been repeatedly criticized. At present, searching for the inherent developmental logic and structural principles of traditional history, culture, and society, rather than mechanically applying Western models and concepts, have become a novel direction in a new era of humanistic and social scientific research in East Asia. At the same time, writings on the particularities of various aspects of traditional East Asian culture have increased quickly. But under the long-term dominance of the Western worldview and modes of thought, contemporary scholars who received modern education since childhood must all, in fact, strive for a long time before they can reach an adequate understanding of the traditional worldviews. If we do not genuinely go through this process at this level, it will be difficult to avoid serious misunderstandings of traditional Asian thought, language, and culture. In light of these difficulties, even if the scholars mentioned above have in a sense emancipated the study of the East Asian traditional world, this study remains in its infancy. This research intends to use modern academic methodology and language to conduct in-depth research into the development and particular nature of the traditional East Asian worldview. This is in order to compare and communicate the basic concepts of tradition and modernity, East and West, and thus have an even more advanced understanding of Eastern and Western history and culture.

2. Themes and Purpose of the Conference

2:1 Conference discussion will focus on the development of the East Asian worldview from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries. It appears that the fundamental principles of the early modern worldviews first emerged in China and then influenced Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, societies whose indigenous worldview proved compatible with the essential features of this new framework. The traditional East Asian worldview, of course, encompassed a vast scope of individual elements. Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Shinto, Legalism, yin-yang, fortune-telling, the politics of successive dynasties, economy, society, culture, learning, the unique thought and culture of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam—all are important factors molding the traditional worldview. Generally speaking, this new worldviews was based on Confucianism but soon blended with Buddhism, Daoism, Shinto, Legalism, yin-yang, fortune telling, and the thought of neighboring countries. The range of topics that it involves are a great many, such as the Way of Heaven, the mandate of Heaven, rituals, celestial beings, fortune-telling, medicine, martial arts, music, law, history, etc. Politics, economy, society, learning, culture, and every aspect of thought also are important foundations of the worldviews.[3] As mentioned above, because the range of topics is so vast, in fact virtually inexhaustible, we must first concentrate our attention on the fundamental character of the worldviews in each important area. After conference participants have presented their studies in individual areas, we shall then begin to explore whether or not it is appropriate to speak of a “worldview of the times.” Since the background and training of each participant differs, it will be difficult to avoid divergent understandings of the basic presuppositions about human existence that emerged in each area. We will not attempt to reach a consensus, but we believe that the worldview of people in the same era and so-called “greater cultural region” (The entire East Asian world was deeply influenced by Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, yin-yang, and fortune-telling.) ought to share a great many common features. This is why we regard the East Asian world as a unit. During the conference, then, we will explore the development and nature of the worldviews in East Asian countries during the fourteenth to nineteenth centuries. We also believe that a comparison and contrast of the worldviews of the modern Western and pre-modern East Asian cultures will give rise to a lively discussion.

2:2 In the past people discussing the traditional East Asian worldview ordinarily had a uni-polar, or monistic, tendency, but as modern researchers, we cannot approach this issue from such a hypothesis. On the contrary, we must proceed from a concrete and diversified foundation, gathering research in different time and areas, and only then can we provide this research with a firm empirical foundation. Regardless of whether the final result leans toward uni-polarity, multi-polarity, or some peculiar relationship in-between, we ought to accept it. Simply stated, this topic of the worldviews cannot be approached from a simplistic perspective, but rather research on each aspect of these concrete phenomena requires a pluralistic vantage point. For these reasons, there is an even greater need to invite to this interdisciplinary conference scholars who have conducted in-depth research on different aspects of this problem. Through our common hard work, we can come to see a more complete picture of the worldviews as understood by people of the past. This research plan will start with the most important thinkers, cultural elites, and dominant trends of the early modern period in East Asia. It shall place special emphasis on Confucianism, but also include Buddhism, Daoism, yin-yang, Legalism, fortune telling, and extend to Japan, Korea, and Vietnam’s particular culture and thought. We will use modern language in our analytical structure and concepts, examining the East Asian and Western worldviews from a comparative perspective in order to appraise the development and basic character of the early modern worldviews in East Asia.

3. Planning

3.1 Invite scholars who have conducted in-depth research into the previous issues to attend a two-day international conference at National Taiwan University on August 5-6, 2005.

3.2 Papers may be submitted either in English or Chinese, and we will conduct conference proceedings in either language. Rules for papers are that they are to be 10,000-20,000 words in length. We will encourage the independent publication of papers after the conference; we will also organize and translate appropriate essays, and after editing, publish them in book form.

3.3 This center could pay for overseas scholars’ room, board, transportation and round-trip economy class airline tickets. However, scholars are also encouraged to locate funds to pay for these expenses from other resources. As for the airline tickets, we would request that they buy the tickets themselves and, while at the conference, this center will reimburse them according to the ticket price. However, the subsidy of airline ticket won’t be more than $1,400 (U.S. dollar) for the scholar from Europe; $1,250 (U.S. dollar) for scholar from the eastern part of U.S.A., and $1,100 for scholar from the western cities of U.S.A.; $735(U.S. dollar) for scholar from China; $297(U.S. dollar) for scholar from Hong Kong.

3.4 Intended areas of research:

i. Synthesis

ii. Confucianism

iii. Buddhism

iv. Daoism

v. Politics

vi. Social Organization

vii. Educational System and Thought

viii. The Body: medicine and the martial arts

ix. Literature

x. Music

xi. Art

xii. Architecture

xiii. Scientific History, Astronomy

xiv. Yin-yang

xv. Religion

*For questions and suggestions, please contact Conference Coordinator, Wu Chan-liang, Professor of History at National Taiwan University. (email: wuwei@ntu.edu.tw)

[1] 世界觀當譯作worldview 或Weltanschauung，與Habermas 和Kossellek 所提倡研究的Lebenswelt[生活世界], Whitehead所提倡的climate of opinions，及源自德意志唯心論的Zeitgeist [時代精神]的意思相關而有所不同。

[2]一個文化的世界觀通常都會根本性地影響乃至決定了該文化對世界人生的基本態度以及語言的使用。古人多相信「天人合一」與人道當效法天地自然，因此傳統世界觀所內涵的秩序與理路，尤其深刻地影響了前人生活與思想中的一切。當然，古人思想也不免有其主觀、有限以及不能確切反映真實世界的部份。然而古代史發展的內在理路，依然不免深受古人生活方式與思路的影響。這些理路，用唯物史觀或西方歷史發展的經驗，往往是難以充分解釋的。

[3] Worldview can often fundamentally influence, even decide, the stated culture’s basic attitude toward the world and human life as well as the use of language. Ancient East Asians, especially the Chinese, deeply believed in the “unity of Heaven and man” and that humanity followed the example of Nature, or Heaven and earth; therefore the order and patterns within the traditional cosmos influenced especially deeply every part of the thought and lifestyle of people of the past. The thought of the ancients may have many parts that were subjective, limited, or unable to accurately reflect the real world. However, the internal logic of ancient historical development still could not avoid being heavily influenced by the thought processes and lifestyle of the ancients. These patterns and internal logic are often difficult to be completely understood through the use of conceptions of modern historiography or through the experience of Western historical development.