戴卡琳 比利时鲁汶大学
Defoort, Carine, University of Leuven
原文Original
Interpretations of ‘Correct Naming’: The Historical Position of Hu Shi
In discussions and textbooks concerning ancient Chinese thought, the idea of ‘correct naming’ or ‘correction of terms’ (zheng ming) is usually presented as a core concept. It is sometimes even presented as a central aspect of Chinese culture by scholars in the field of political and social sciences. This paper is an initial attempt to discover how important Hu Shi’s (1891-1962) impact has been in the formation of this dominant view. The larger research consists of three steps:
(1) indicate possible discrepancies between this dominant view and the early sources: Despite ongoing academic debates and different opinions in the field, there is a general agreement that zheng ming (at least in the Lunyu) is concerned with social order, more specifically with people behaving correctly (zheng) according the demands imposed by the name (ming) of their role or position. The most recurring consensus views usually contain several of the following overlapping characteristics. By briefly presenting them, this presentation does not aim at a philosophical criticism of these views, but rather at a historical search for the emergence of interpretations and their contextual background (with a focus on Hu Shi in part 2).
(2) describe Hu Shi’s view on zheng ming: The general view on zheng ming in current discussions and textbooks is well represented in Hu Shi’s work, more specifically in his doctorate and first major work on the history of Chinese philosophy:
Hu Shih, The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China, New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corp., 1922, but first written in 1917.
胡适, 中国哲学史大纲, Beijing: Dongfang, 1919.
Both books are representative of Hu Shi’s early thought. And the latter was extremely influential in creating modern reading of early Chinese thought at the turn of the 20th century.
(3) trace the possible antecedents, followers and critics of Hu Shi. The current presentation is limited to the two first steps and focuses on Lunyu 13.3, the only explicit statement on zheng ming attributed to Confucius in the Lunyu.
子路曰：“卫君待子而为政，子将奚先？”
子曰：“必也正名乎！”
子路曰：“有是哉，子之迂也！奚其正？”
子曰：“野哉由也！君子于其所不知，盖阙如也。名不正，则言不顺；言不顺，则事不成；事不成，则礼乐不兴；礼乐不兴，则刑罚不中；刑罚不中，则民无所措手足。故君子名之必可言也，言之必可行也。君子于其言，无所苟而已矣。”
A much larger research project will encompass other zheng ming fragments as well as the third step into the world of scholars preceding and following Hu Shi.
My approach is not philosophical, namely criticizing Hu Shi for ‘misrepresenting’ Confucius’ original zheng ming idea, because every fruitful understanding is inevitably an interpretation in novel terms. The aim is rather a historical reconstruction of the currently dominant zheng ming view, with a focus on Hu Shi’s contribution to it. My interest in Hu Shi is inspired by a suspicion that his influence has been enormous, not only on contemporary Chinese and Western readings of zheng ming, but also on my own interpretation of it. Therefore, I have not just presented the temporary results of my initial research, but also the larger context, in the hope of receiving suggestions and comments from scholars in the field.
译文Translation
对“正名”的阐释——胡适的历史地位
在有关中国古代思想的讨论和书籍中，“正名”一词通常被视为一个核心概念，政治和社会科学领域中的一些学者甚至将“正名”看作是中国文化的中心问题。本文意在揭示，在这种主流观点的形成过程中，胡适（1891-1962）如何所发挥了重要的影响和作用。在此基础之上，更大范围的研究将分成以下三个步骤：
（1）探寻这种主流观点与早期诠释之间可能存在的差异：尽管学界始终为“正名”的不同理解而争论不休，但是他们大体上认同“正名”（至少是论语中的“正名”）与社会秩序相关，尤其是指人们按照一定的身份地位之“名”的需要，来“正”确地规范自己的行为。在关于“正名”的最常见共识中，往往包含一些相互重迭的看法。本文在简要介绍这些看法时，并不着力于哲学上的评论，而是更注重对相关诠释的产生及其前后背景的历史研究（重点在第二部分关于胡适的研究）。
（2）阐述胡适在“正名”上的观点：目前关于“正名”的通行看法在胡适的著作中都有体现，尤其见之于其博士论文和其第一部中国哲学史著作。胡适的《先秦名学史》写于1917年，1922年在纽约出版；胡适的《中国哲学史大纲》于1919年在北京出版。这两本书都是胡适早期思想的代表，而《中国哲学史大纲》对于20世纪初的“整理国故”影响尤为深远。
（3）追溯胡适观点可能存在的先行者，后继者和批评者。
目前的研究仍局限于前两个步骤，论述也主要围绕论语第13章第3节展开，这是孔子在论语中唯一明确地论及“正名”之处：
子路曰：“卫君待子而为政，子将奚先？”
子曰：“必也正名乎！”
子路曰：“有是哉，子之迂也！奚其正？”
子曰：“野哉由也！君子于其所不知，盖阙如也。名不正，则言不顺；言不顺，则事不成；事不成，则礼乐不兴；礼乐不兴，则刑罚不中；刑罚不中，则民无所措手足。故君子名之必可言也，言之必可行也。君子于其言，无所苟而已矣。”
更进一步的研究将围绕其他有关“正名”的篇章展开，同时进入第三个步骤，即对胡适之前和之后学者的相关思想展开研究。
本人的研究方法并不是哲学意义上的对胡适“误读”孔子的“正名”概念的批评，因为一切有益的理解都必然包含新异的成分。我希望以胡适的观点为中心，对目前主流的“正名”观点进行历史重构。本人认为，胡适的观点很有可能对于当代中西方学者对“正名”的解释产生了巨大的影响，甚至影响了我个人对“正名”的诠释，这构成了我研究胡适的出发点。总之，本报告将介绍目前获得的初步研究成果，并说明进一步的研究计划，希望各位学界同仁予以指正。