| 摘要: | 《荀子》之〈樂論〉可算最早系統地對音樂作道德論證之著作，雖然之前的《左傳》以及《論語》皆道德地看待音樂，但〈樂論〉從人類學之角度，把音樂之起源歸於人之性情，有系統地建構其音樂哲學，可謂承先啟後。以人之性情為音樂之人類學起源，一直為中國音樂哲學所遵守，直至魏晉之嵇康亦未違背。《荀子》把音樂哲學放在其實踐哲學中理解，其中的性情乃屬其性惡論範疇，性惡論之困難自然亦傳到其音樂哲學中：人性之惡由人順性情之過度而來，而對其克服卻基於外在的聖賢，即由聖王製定音樂之規範來平服人心，但假若人之淫亂從人之性情（過度）而來，則平服人心之能力亦應從人之內部主體來說明，而非外在的權威如聖王。《禮記》之〈樂記〉跳出其中的困難，它從兩層人性論(人之性情與人天生之性，即靜)系統地從主體之先天結構說明大樂如何能克服六情之樂。〈樂記〉之貢獻乃把《荀子》之從性惡論音樂哲學扭轉到孟子之性善論。但是，〈樂記〉對音樂之道德理解本身卻還含有困難：依此，音樂便從屬於道德，其本身之藝術獨立價值便穩而不見，而且在其道德之名下，鄭衛之音本身就算高妙，亦不為〈樂記〉下的儒家所欣賞。〈樂記〉之困難為當代學者徐復觀所見，他一方面承認儒家〈樂記〉之音樂觀，但另方面卻嘗試替音樂與道德劃出一條界線。然其工作亦有困難，理由在於徐氏只在境界上把二者區分開來，但他一如〈樂記〉與〈樂論〉一樣，視音樂領域之性情從屬於道德領域，因而他並未能從音樂之獨立性，如何在人性情主體中成為可能作出解答，因而徐氏並未能說明音樂本身，而始終從道德之領域上來理解音樂。然而，這問題早在魏晉嵇康之〈聲無哀樂論〉中解決：音樂雖由性情而生，但並未歸屬於道德領域，心並非要克服性情而使音樂替道德服務，反而要讓性情自然顯發。儒家所持音樂之移風易俗之教化功能只有第二序的意義，音樂本身不附屬於任何價值觀，而只是隨性情而生。所以嵇康能欣賞一直為儒家所排斥的鄭聲，它不止不是靡靡之樂，反而是聲音之至妙。
〈On Music〉(《樂論》) of 《Xunzi》(《荀子》)is a work in which music is systematically morally justified. Although 《Zuochuan》(《左傳》)and 《Lunyu》 (《論語》) treat music morally, 〈On Music〉sees the human nature as its beginning from the viewpoint of anthropology, constructs systematically a philosophy of music, and its work is original. Such viewpoint that human nature as an anthropological root for music is a principle of philosophy of music in china, and even Jikang(嵇康) in Weijin(魏晉) belongs to such tradition. 《Xunzi》understands music from his practical philosophy, and the human nature belongs to the category of theory of evil human nature, therefore the difficulties in his theory can be found also in his philosophy of music, evil in human nature comes from that human acts according to his own nature, but its practical overcome comes from outsider wise man, that is, from the music which are made by wise man in order to suppress human mind. But when human evil comes from human nature, then the ability to suppress human mind should come also from the same subjectivity, not from wise man as an external authority. 〈Yueji〉(〈樂記〉)of 《Liji》(《禮記》)understands such difficulty, and explains how Great-music overcomes six feelings-music by two respects of human nature (human nature and transcendental human nature, that is, silence) . The work of 〈Yueji〉 transforms the philosophy of music according to theory of evil human nature of Xunzi to theory of good human nature of Mencius. But〈Yueji〉itself implies still a big difficulty: music belongs to the category of moral and therefore loses the independent value of arts, and under the name of moral Zheug Music (鄭音) is never evaluated well by Confucius, although it is in fact a wonderful arts. The difficulty of 〈Yueji〉is found by professor Hsu, his solution depends on that there is a line between moral and music, and at the same time the philosophy of music of 〈Yueji〉 is still acknowledged. His effort can’t be seen as successful because he thinks still that human nature of music belongs to the category of moral like 〈Yueji〉, and the mentioned line between music and moral exists only in life, so that it is difficult to say that he is successful to find the answer to the question how the independence of music becomes on the basics of human nature possible. Hsu can’t explain music itself, but understands it only by means of moral. An answer to this question has been raised by Jikang Jikang in his 〈On music without feelings〉(〈聲無哀樂論〉): Music comes from human nature, but it can’t be reduced to the category of moral. According to the understanding of Jikang, mind should not overcome human nature so that it makes music under services for moral. On the contrary mind let human nature reveal itself. Music doesn’t depend on any other values, but only reveals itself according to human nature. |
