|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]陈萌萌.胡宏与湛甘泉哲学关系析论——基于牟宗三“五峰-蕺山”系的考察[J].集美大学学报(哲社版),2025,28(04):51-60.
　CHEN Mengmeng.A Textual Study of the Philosophic Relationship Between Hu Hong and Zhan Ganquan:Based on Mou Zongsan’s Investigation of the Wufeng-Jishan School[J].philosophy&social sciences,2025,28(04):51-60.
点击复制

胡宏与湛甘泉哲学关系析论——基于牟宗三“五峰-蕺山”系的考察(PDF)
分享到：

《集美大学学报》（哲社版）[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:
28
期数:
2025年04期
页码:
51-60
栏目:
出版日期:
2025-08-26

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Textual Study of the Philosophic Relationship Between Hu Hong and Zhan Ganquan:Based on Mou Zongsan’s Investigation of the Wufeng-Jishan School
作者:
陈萌萌
山东大学儒学高等研究院，山东 济南 250100
Author(s):
CHEN Mengmeng
Confucianism Institute for Advanced Studies,Shandong University,Jinan 250100,China
关键词:
胡宏; 湛甘泉; “五峰-蕺山”系; 心性论; 工夫论
Keywords:
Hu Hong; Zhan GanQuan; Wufeng-Jishan School; theory of the mind and human nature; theory of cultivation
分类号:
-
DOI:
-
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
胡宏与湛甘泉在心性及工夫问题上多有相似之处，但根据牟宗三“道德的形上学”理论而得出二者同属“五峰-蕺山”系的结论则需审慎辨析。对于本体论，胡、湛均主张心性合一，贯通宇宙维度的道体运化与心性维度的道德创生，其本体“即存有即活动”。对于工夫论，胡、湛均反对片面主静与涵养未发、重视体认善端与扩充已发、强调正向体察而非消极克治，整体进路呈现为“由用即体”。二者分歧体现在：对于本体论，胡宏是性本论，湛甘泉则是心本论；对于心性论，胡宏以“性体心用”厘定客观面性体与主观面心体的体用关系，湛甘泉的“大心说”则以心体涵摄客观面性理，且胡宏是从修养境界上谈心性合一，湛甘泉则以心性合一为先验预设的逻辑起点；对于工夫论，湛甘泉无意朝向外在超越维度的进行整体悟见、不符合“逆觉体证”的讲法，且其“大心说”意在将客观面的事理内收至本心，由此事上工夫亦是心内工夫，不存在由内向外的工夫指向。
Abstract:
Hu Hong and Zhan Ganquan share notable similarities in their discourses on mind-nature and spiritual praxis.However,the categorization of both thinkers under the Wufeng-Jishan School proposed by Mou Zongsan based on his moral metaphysics requires careful scrutiny.Regarding ontological frameworks,both philosophers advocate the unity of mind and nature,integrating the cosmic dimension of Dao’s operation with the ethical dimension of moral creativity,characterizing their ontology as “simultaneously existent and active”.In their theories of spiritual praxis,they jointly oppose the partial emphasis on stillness and nurturing the unmanifested state,instead prioritizing the recognition of virtuous inclinations and the extension of manifested states,emphasizing proactive observation over passive restraint,thus presenting a holistic approach of “realizing substance through function”.Their divergences manifest in four aspects:Ontologically,Hu Hong establishes a nature-based ontology while Zhan adheres to a mind-based ontology.In mind-nature architecture,Hu’s “substance of nature and function of mind” framework distinguishes between the objective substance of nature and subjective substance of mind,whereas Zhan’s Great Mind theory subsumes objective principles of nature under the subjective mind.Theoretically,Hu grounds mind-nature unity in cultivated spiritual states,while Zhan posits it as an a priori presupposition and logical starting point.Regarding praxis methodology,Zhan’s approach diverges from the “introspective intuition” paradigm by avoiding comprehensive apprehension of transcendent substance.His Great Mind theory internalizes external principles into innate mind,rendering external practices as intrinsic mental cultivation,thus eliminating the inward-to-outward directional orientation in spiritual praxis.

参考文献/References:

相似文献/References:

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
更新日期/Last Update: 2025-09-07