儒家政治哲学的“明代方案”

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (5)

Download: PDF (635 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The “Ming Dynasty Program” of Confucian political philosophy represents the theoretical deepening and practical implementation of Confucian political philosophy during the Ming Dynasty. Since the founding of the Ming Dynasty, the official authorities had continuously shaped Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism, while various schools of “Mind-Learning” emerged one after another. These developments accumulated to a critical point by the mid-Ming period, contributing to the diverse manifestations of Confucian political philosophy. The “Great Rites Controversy” was a concentrated reflection of the “external kingship” dimension of Neo-Confucianism and Mind-Learning. The Ritual-Defending School took Neo-Confucianism as an ideological weapon to resist the will of imperial power, demonstrating that Neo-Confucianism still retained certain vitality and dynamism even under political oppression. In contrast, the Ritual-Contending School used Mind-Learning to break free from the constraints of traditional ethics and rituals, marking the official emergence of Mind-Learning, an innovative branch of Confucianism, in the political arena of the Ming Dynasty. Mind-Learning excelled in highlighting individual subjectivity, yet its contributions to the “external kingship” dimension of Confucianism should not be overestimated. Meanwhile, Qi-Learning, with its emphasis on holism, inevitably exerted some restrictive effects on the individual; however, its efforts in expanding the “external kingship” dimension of Confucianism were quite remarkable. The construction of political philosophy based on the theory of Qi can be categorized into three types. Firstly, taking the “reality” represented by Qi as the criterion, it continuously adjusted the “name” represented by the Principle, aiming to achieve consistency between name and reality. Secondly, it placed “reality” and “name” in a process of mutual adaptation and dynamic adjustment. Thirdly, it separated “reality” and “name” into two distinct domains, abandoning the pursuit of consistency between name and reality in the context of Confucian moral philosophy. Overall, while the “Ming Dynasty Program” of Confucian political philosophy demonstrated profound insights and rich connotations, it inevitably had inherent limitations. This was largely because politics is the product of the combined forces of various factors of the times, which imposed unavoidable restrictions on its development.

Key words： political philosophy Mind-Learning the Great Rites Controversy Inner Sagehood and Outer Kingship the theory of Qi

Received: 10 September 2025

PACS:	D0
	B222

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	ZHOU Lei

Cite this article:

ZHOU Lei. The “Ming Dynasty Program” of Confucian Political Philosophy[J]. , 2025, 42(6): 150-159.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2025/V42/I6/150

[1] (加)卜正民.社群·王朝:明代国家与社会[M].廖彦博译.新北:台湾商务印书馆股份有限公司,2018.275.
[2] 宋濂.宋濂全集(第3册)[M].杭州:浙江古籍出版社,2014.
[3] (日)永富青地.明朝初期的理学与佛学的对立和融合[A].宗志罡.明代思想与中国文化[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,1994.43.
[4] 宋濂.宋濂全集(第5册)[M].杭州:浙江古籍出版社,2014.1638.
[5] 余英时. 中国历史研究的反思:古代史篇[M].新北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2022.
[6] 韩伟. 明代法家思想及其当代价值[J].理论探索,2017,(1):31-36.
[7] 李孝悌. 明清以降的宗教城市与启蒙[M].新北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2019.63.
[8] 方志远. 明代国家权力结构及运行机制[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.6.
[9] 朱棣. 圣学心法[M].台北:中国子学名著集成编印基金会,1978.
[10] 余英时. 历史与思想(二版)[M].新北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2014.52.
[11] 黄宗羲. 黄宗羲全集(第4册)[M].姚延福点校.杭州:浙江古籍出版社,2012.816.
[12] 明实录(第39册)[M].上海:上海书店出版社,2018.1022.
[13] 谢贵安. 王阳明心学与“大礼议”复杂关系试析[J].明史研究,2018,(16):1-11.
[14] 朱熹. 朱子全书2版(修订版)(第17册)[M].朱杰人,严佐之,刘永翔主编.上海:上海古籍出版社;合肥:安徽教育出版社,2010.3499.
[15] 张立文. 论“大礼议”与朱熹王阳明思想的冲突[J].南昌大学学报(人文社会科学版),1999,(2):65-69.
[16] 王宇. 合作、分歧、挽救:王阳明与议礼派的关系史[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(6):97-107.
[17] 曾亦. 严父莫大于配天:从明代“大礼议”看朱熹与王阳明对“至善”概念的不同理解[J].中国哲学史. 2020,(3):92-99.
[18] 萧公权. 中国政治思想史(下)(三版)[M].新北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2022.44.
[19] 魏月萍.君师道合:晚明儒者的三教合一论述[M].台北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2016.188.
[20] (美)本杰明·艾尔曼.晚期中华帝国的科举与选士[M].刘倩译.香港:中华书局(香港)有限公司,2022.33.
[21] 管志道. 惕若斋续集[A].沈乃文.明别集丛刊(第3辑)(第72册)[M].合肥:黄山书社,2016.175.
[22] 朱鸿林. 致君与化俗:明代经筵乡约研究文选[M].香港:三联书店(香港)有限公司. 2013.54.
[23] 张莞苓. 内圣外王的重整与贯彻:朱熹的哲学思想与道德事功之学[M].台北:台湾政治大学出版社,2020. 632.
[24] 钱穆. 钱宾四先生全集(第21册)[M].台北:联经出版事业公司,1998.90.
[25] 徐泓. 圣明极盛之世:明清社会史论集[M].新北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2021.71.
[26] 陈宝良. 明代儒学生员与地方社会[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.388.
[27] 甘怀真. 再论儒教国家:代导读.皇权、礼仪与经典诠释:中国古代政治史研究(二版)[M].台北:台湾大学出版中心,2022.
[28] 刘长林. 说“气”[A].杨儒宾.中国古代思想中的气论及身体观[M].台北:巨流图书股份有限公司,1993.117.
[29] 罗钦顺. 困知记[M].阎韬点校.北京:中华书局,2013.5-6.
[30] 王廷相.王廷相集(第2册)[M].王孝鱼点校.北京:中华书局,1989.603.
[31] 黄进兴.优入圣域:权力、信仰与正当性(修订版)[M].北京:中华书局,2010.124.
[32] 王汎森. 晚明清初思想十论[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004.95.
[33] (日)荒木见悟.中国心学の鼓動と仏教[M].福冈:中国书店,1995.25.
[34] 钱新祖. 焦竑与晚明新儒思想的重构[M].宋家复译.台北:台湾大学出版中心,2014.249.
[35] 张艺曦.歧路彷徨:明代小读书人的选择与困境[M].新竹:阳明交通大学出版社,2022.26.
[36] 罗钦顺. 整庵存稿[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1991.58.
[37] 钟彩钧. 罗整庵的经世思想与其政治社会背景[J].中国文哲研究集刊(总第8期),1996:197-226.
[38] 王廷相.王廷相集(第3册)[M].王孝鱼点校.北京:中华书局,1989.789.
[39] 吴震.道的“去形上化”——德川日本徂徕学建构政治化儒学的一项尝试[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014,(2):33-40+152.
[40] (日)丸山真男.日本政治思想史研究[M].东京:东京大学出版会,1952.76.
[41] 何冠彪.生与死:明季士大夫的抉择[M].新北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,2022.100.
[42] (加)卜正民.价崩:气候危机与大明王朝的终结[M].冯奕达译.新北:卫城出版/左岸文化事业有限公司,2024. 222.