Dai Zhen was well aware of the logic presupposition that classics convey Truth. Taking the Four Books and Five Classics as the authoritative basis to cease the controversy, he took the strategy of devotion to objective interpretation. Therefore, Fang Dongshu failed to grasp Dai Zhen’s own context when he reminded that the classics were deferent from practical texts. However, Dai Zhen did have experiential way to truth, for pre-comprehension consists of two main parts, the comprehension of language and text, and of the world, and the latter is the former’s prerequisite and destination. This was the fundamental reason why Dai Zhen took institution sometimes as the preliminary condition for classics interpretation, while as the only”signified”of classics in two of his essays. When institution was taken as the only ”signified” of classics, Dai Zhen could be called a more radical practitioner than the neo-confucianist.% 戴震清醒意识到经书传达道这一逻辑预设，将五经四书作为平息争论的权威依据，故而采取了专力于客观性解经的策略。因此方东树提醒经书与“里巷话言、官牍文书”不同时，并未把握到戴学自身的脉络。但戴震并非没有体认求道的进路，因为前理解包含对语言文字的理解和对世界的理解两大部分，其中后者是前者的前提和归宿。这是戴震有时将典章制度列为解经的前提条件，而在《题惠定宇先生授经图》和《古经解钩沉序》二文中却作为经书唯一所指的根本原因。当典章制度作为经书唯一所指时，戴震可谓比宋明理学家更为激进的体认主义者。
展开▼
