2 0 0 0 IR 山鹿素行の朱子学批判
1 0 0 0 OA 山鹿素行の「日用」論 「聖人の道」との関係を中心として
- 著者
- 石橋 賢太
- 出版者
- 日本倫理学会
- 雑誌
- 倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.69, pp.233-247, 2020 (Released:2021-05-24)
Yamaga Soko criticizes the lack of practicality of Neo-Confucianism and is known as a thinker who emphasizes“ daily use ”. However, if you think in detail, there is still a lot of doubt about the position of “daily use” in the philosophy of conduct. Of particular importance is the relationship between “daily use” and “the saint’s way”. To date, no studies have clarified this relationship. Looking at his understanding of the conduct of both, there is a contradiction between “the saint’s way”, which has transcendence that transcends the era, and “daily use” that has individuality depending on the era. As a clue to resolving this contradiction, this paper focused on the discussion about “Taikyoku”. In this context, Soko has criticized Zhou’s interpretation of the time of “Taikyoku”, and has developed the “Taikyoku” theory that all coexist simultaneously. The act says that “Tenchi” is also “Taikyoku”, and “Tenchi” is regarded as non-temporal. And since the saints are based on their “Tenchi”, “the saint’s way” has timeless transcendence. However, ordinary people cannot recognize “Tenchi” as a non-temporal thing, but have to recognize things in the eyes in order. As a result, the idea of time occurs in human recognition. “daily use“ is a phase in the idea of this time. Being committed to such “daily use” means that we believe we have to live in human perception, which is different from the original way of “Tenchi”. We can make such a claim because we believe that individuality and the whole are united. The “Taikyku” theory of the conduct is that all the people exist at the same time, and individual and transcendence exist at the same time as one. Therefore, living the perception of people who are only individual leads to the whole. That is why “saint ’s way” and “daily use”, which have contradictory personalities, are compatible with each other. Background of such thought is criticism of the idea that individuality and transcendence are separated temporally and individuality is only provisional. This is because such a way of thinking ignores the existence of diverse people.