张载以“气质”言“恶”探析
The Analysis of Zhang Zai’s Theory of Temperament and Evil

自先秦以来，性善论始终占主导地位，与之相较，儒学对于“恶”的来源却没有找到完善的答案，直至张载提出“气质之性”，才使得这一问题有了很大发展。后人对其“气质之性”说的研究主要分两条路径，可以简略表述为先天之恶与后天之恶。前者将“恶”直接归于“气质之性”，后者将“恶”归于后天习染。两条思路大相径庭，究其根本在于对气质之性的不同理解，以及将“恶”归属于气或者习的不同路径。前者认为“气质之性”为“恶”的原因在于人形成时所禀赋之气有清浊、昏明、正偏之差异；后者认为“恶”源于后天习染，但部分学者却因此直接否定“气质之性”这一说法。然而，张载的独特之处在于，他不是简单地将恶归属于气或者习，而是结合两者更好地说明人与人之间存在的现实差异，以及对现实中产生的“恶”给予合理解释。故张载是在承认气质之性的基础上，将“恶”归于人，归罪于后天之习。
Since the pre-Qin period, the theory of good nature has always been dominant in Confucianism. In contrast, Confucianism did not find a perfect answer to the source of “evil”. It was not until Zhang Zai put forward “the nature of temperament” that this question had a great development. Later generation’s research on his “the nature of temperament” mainly is divided into two approaches, namely, the innate evil and the acquired evil. Innate evil attributes “evil” directly to “the nature of temperament”, while acquired evil attributes “evil” to acquired habit. The two approaches are quite different, the root of which lies in the different understanding of the nature of temperament and the different approaches to ascribing “evil” to gas or habit. The former holds that the “the nature of temperament” is “evil” because of the differences of clear, bright and positive gas in the formation of human being. The latter believed that “evil” came from acquired habits, but some scholars directly denied the idea of “the nature of temperament”. The difference between Zhang Zai and his predecessors lies in that he did not simply ascribe evil to gas or habit, but combined them to better explain the realistic differences between people and give a reasonable explanation for the “evil” in reality. Therefore, on the basis of admitting the nature of temperament, Zhang Zai ascribed “evil” to people and attributed it to their acquired habits.