論牟宗三對基督宗教的判釋／鄧紹光
撮要
本文目的在於分析當代新儒家牟宗三對基督宗教的判釋。牟宗三判釋基督宗教為依他起信，是從其兩層存有論而得出的結論。由無執的主體而有無執的存有論，由執的主體而有執的存有論。無執的主體為實，實而能虛，虛的即是執的主體。基督宗教的起信並非依於人無執的主體，而是由於人的執的主體。人的執的主體把無執的主體外在普遍化而成客觀的對象，即把無執的主體這自由無限心外在化而為外在的上帝。牟宗三批評基督宗教為消除人的主體。然而，牟氏的哲學是道德主體的，而非倫理主體的。按當代現象學的分析，主體的覺醒不可能抽離他者而只內視其自己，自我覺醒總是涉及對異己的感應。異己的他者在自我覺醒一事上，具有優先性，這跟牟宗三以自我具優位性的看法大相逕庭。基督宗教對信的看法，基本上就是以異己的他者為首出。牟宗三對基督宗教的判釋，後果就是殺害異己的上帝，是出於求全求同的自我論；對相異性的不安使牟宗三走向消除和同化相異的主體，好能安頓自己。然而，這種安頓只是虛幻的，需要作出解構式的清理。
ABSTRACT
Mou Zong-san, the well-known contemporary Confucian, judges Christianity as faith awakened by the Other. This conclusion is out of his philosophy – the two levels of ontology, that of non-attachment and of attachment. These two correspond to two different kinds of human subjectivity, namely, subjectivity of non-attachment and of attachment. For Mou, the former is real while the latter is false. On the one hand, the concept of God in Christianity is the product of the subjectivity of attachment. On the other hand, it is also this God one attaches to as the Other who awakens one’s self-understanding. Mou considers that this God as the external object is the outcome of the extemalization of one’s subjectivity of non-attachment by one’s subjectivity of attachment. In this way, Mou criticizes Christianity for her dissolution of human subjectivity of non-attachment. However, according to contemporary phenomenology, self-awakenness is only possible in relation to the Other. One’s self-awakenness is accompanied by the awakenness of the Other. Therefore, the alien Other has priority in understanding the self. Conversely, Mou takes that the self has priority over the Other. Mou’s philosophical interpretation of Christianity can be understood as a kind of killing the alien God whose alterity threatens the human self; and this interpretation comes out of the egology of totality and sameness. Mou’s unease of the alterity makes him dissolve the alien God into human subjectivity so as to secure the self from any threatening. However, this security is only an illusion and therefore Mou’s philosophy should be deconstructed without hesitation.
原載於《建道學刊》19期（2003年1月），頁59-70。
