[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"guanxue-ren-gaozi":3},{"slug":4,"topic":5,"name":6,"aliases":7,"school":9,"era":10,"oneLiner":14,"summary":15,"tags":16,"infobox":21,"sections":40,"quotes":59,"related":79,"seo":92},"gaozi","ren","告子",[8],"告不害","ru",{"from":11,"to":12,"label":13},-372,-289,"生卒不详，系于战国中期","与孟子论辩人性内外的思想者","告子是战国中期思想者，生平事迹几乎只见于《孟子》。他以杞柳、湍水等譬喻讨论人性，并提出仁内义外，其观点在孟子的反驳中得到保存。",[17,18,19,20],"战国思想","人性论","义外说","孟子论辩",[22,25,28,31,34,37],{"label":23,"value":24},"姓名","告不害（传统说法）",{"label":26,"value":27},"生卒","不详",{"label":29,"value":30},"时代","战国中期",{"label":32,"value":33},"身份","思想者、论辩者",{"label":35,"value":36},"事迹","与孟子辩论人性",{"label":38,"value":39},"文献","主要见《孟子》",[41,44,47,50,53,56],{"heading":42,"md":43},"生平与身份","告子的生卒、国籍和师承均不可确考。“告不害”是传统注释所传姓名，先秦正文主要称“告子”。《孟子·公孙丑上》说他比孟子更早做到“不动心”，《告子上》又集中记录二人的人性论辩，可知他大致与孟子同时或稍长。除此之外，没有足够材料为他编排游历或著述；把他确定归入儒、墨或其他具体学派，都超过现有证据。",{"heading":45,"md":46},"与孟子的论辩","今人所知告子，几乎完全来自以孟子为中心编成的文本。《孟子·告子上》先列杞柳之喻：人性像杞柳，仁义像用杞柳制成的杯盘。孟子反问，制器若须戕害材料，岂不是说成就仁义也要伤害人性？告子又以湍水说明人性不分善恶，如水本不分东西；孟子则改说水虽不分东西，却必然向下，以此比喻人趋向于善。双方都借物譬性，但对譬喻应抓住何种性质意见不同。",{"heading":48,"md":49},"人性与仁义内外","告子还提出“生之谓性”，把生而具有的特征作为性的基础。孟子以犬、牛、人与性之差别连续追问，要求说明人的道德特征是否也属于性。另一组命题是“食色，性也；仁，内也；义，外也”：亲爱出于主体，所以仁在内；敬长随外在对象而定，所以义在外。孟子及其弟子则通过敬兄、敬乡人等情境辨析，主张义的判断并非只是外物强加。\n\n这些片段不能拼成告子的完整哲学体系。杞柳之喻似乎强调道德成形有待加工，湍水之喻强调本性未定向，“生之谓性”又着眼生命共同属性；三说能否完全相容，学界有不同解释。较稳妥的做法，是把它们视为《孟子》保存的若干辩题，而不替告子补写一套未见于文献的学说。",{"heading":51,"md":52},"工夫论线索","《孟子·公孙丑上》引告子说：“不得于言，勿求于心；不得于心，勿求于气。”孟子部分赞同不以气强求于心，却反对言辞有疑而不反求于心。这显示告子不仅讨论抽象人性，也涉及心、气和不动心的修养问题。然而原文篇幅很短，其“不动心”究竟依靠何种训练并无说明，不宜与孟子的知言养气等同。",{"heading":54,"md":55},"文献中的形象","在《孟子》中，告子是重要论敌而非被简单嘲弄的人物：他的譬喻结构清楚，迫使孟子说明“性善”所说的是趋向、能力还是既成行为，也促成仁义内外之辨。文本最终让孟子取得论辩优势，但这是一部孟子学派文献的叙事位置。告子自己的著作若曾存在，今已不可见，因此重建其思想必须保留单一来源造成的不对称。",{"heading":57,"md":58},"后世流变","汉代以来的《孟子》注疏多围绕性无善无不善、义外等命题定位告子，宋代理学又常以他反衬孟子性善论。现代研究更注意告子材料自身的多义性，以及论辩文本可能经过编纂。告子的历史影响，主要由孟子对他的回应间接形成。",[60,67,71,75],{"text":61,"source":62,"note":63,"classic":64},"性，犹杞柳也；义，犹桮棬也。以人性为仁义，犹以杞柳为桮棬。","《孟子·告子上》","告子以杞柳制器比喻由人性形成仁义，孟子据“是否伤材”反驳。",{"slug":65,"volume":66},"mengzi",11,{"text":68,"source":62,"note":69,"classic":70},"性犹湍水也，决诸东方则东流，决诸西方则西流。人性之无分于善不善也，犹水之无分于东西也。","告子认为人性本身没有善恶定向，如湍水可随出口流向东西。",{"slug":65,"volume":66},{"text":72,"source":62,"note":73,"classic":74},"告子曰：“生之谓性。”孟子曰：“生之谓性也，犹白之谓白与？”","告子以生而具有者界定性，孟子先从“白”的同一性追问，再辨人与其他生物之性。",{"slug":65,"volume":66},{"text":76,"source":62,"note":77,"classic":78},"食色，性也。仁，内也，非外也；义，外也，非内也。","告子把食色归于性，认为仁发自内在亲爱，而义取决于外在对象。",{"slug":65,"volume":66},[80,81,83,85,88,90],{"topic":5,"slug":65},{"topic":5,"slug":82},"gongsunchou",{"topic":5,"slug":84},"xunzi",{"topic":86,"slug":87},"ming","xingshan",{"topic":86,"slug":89},"xinge",{"topic":86,"slug":91},"zhiyan-yangqi",{"title":93,"description":94,"keywords":95},"告子——与孟子辩论人性善恶的思想者 | 儒家百科","告子是谁、主张人性无善无不善吗？本词条依据《孟子》梳理告不害的杞柳与湍水之喻、“生之谓性”、仁内义外和不动心，并说明其生平与学派归属之争及影响。",[6,8,96,97,98,99,100],"告子人性论","杞柳之喻","湍水之喻","仁内义外","孟子告子"]