<論説>佐藤直方の学問論 : 朱子学的思考の一形式

Abstract

日本近世における朱子学の思想史的意義を自然法の論理を以て解明する方法は巨視的に見て誤りはないであろうが、右の方法を日本朱子学者個々に向ける場合尚考慮すべき余地があろう。例えば本論において見る如き佐藤直方の学問論はその有する個人的・心理的性格よりして現実の人間存在に対する深い関心と強い個我意識の存在が指摘されるのであって、近世初頭の朱子学者林羅山の思想とは著しい対比を示すと考えられる。即ち朱子学批判の活溌化する元禄前後の時期にあっては朱子学者側における朱子解釈も一歩進んでいるのであって、朱子学者内部において羅山的な見方が動揺している点は見逃がせない。朱子学批判の論点が社会性、行為性の欠如をつくのは右に述べた直方の学問論の性格より見て当然であり、朱子学者をも含めて先行の思考形式に対する批判の生れるところに、元禄前後の時期の歴史的意義が顧みられなければならないが、本稿では視野を直方の学問論に限定し、その他に関しては後考に俟ちたいと思う。

Broadly speaking, it is no fault to explain the thought of Chu-tzu which was accepted widely in the intellectual world under the Shogunate from the viewpoint of the teaching of natural law. But some doubts would arise when we consider each cases of the Japanese students of the school from the same viewpoint. For instance, the doctrine of Learning of Sato Naokata was much differentiated from that of the orthodoxy, of which the most eminent apolgist was Hayashi Razan, in his insight into humanity as well as in his deep self-consciousness. Indeed, this unique theory was inseparable with his originality, but, on the other hand, we have to admit that the orthodhxy doctrine had showed its sign of decline even in the school till the age of Genroku when the stream of criticism began to flow. It is quite natural from his doctrine that he criticized the anti-social and impractical side of the orthodoxy, but important is the mood that challenged the dignity of the preceding theory. Such was the intellectual world around the Genroku era, and herein lies its historical significance. In this article, however, our view is mainly concentrated upon the theory of Sato Naokata.