孟學與荀學之爭，是儒學研究長期以來的問題，這之間的交鋒要如何解 決，或許可以從孔子「知者樂水，仁者樂山；知者動，仁者靜；知者樂，仁 者壽」一段論述得到啟發。在多元價值的現代社會，沒有一套理論可以含括 所有人格類型，而應當追求儒學複數真理的可能。就像孔子認為人有「智者」 與「仁者」之分。是以不妨深入中國哲學中以「隱喻」作為審美規範的思想 特色取代西方邏輯思考的進路─企圖以嚴謹的定義與學派劃分，將「孟學 典範」與「荀學典範」化約為「仁性系統」與「智性系統」。亦即透過存有 者的生命歷程，去探索其所處「宇宙─自然」的類型、「社會─經濟」的樣 態，透過追尋思想家感受現實地景與社會進而整合出屬於自身的人格體系。 亦即，孟子與荀子分別受到鄒魯文化與齊趙文化的深刻影響，而前者透過感 受鄒魯「山型宇宙─自然」的環境，進而整合出「山型人格」─以「仁─ 靜─壽」為核心的體系；後者則透過感受齊趙「水型宇宙─自然」之地景， 是以整合出「水型人格」─以「智─動─樂」為核心的系統。而這樣以美 學體現的人格類型劃分，因著其指涉的模糊性、包容性，使「山型」系統與 「水型」系統能夠流動、交融，而不成為僵化而衝突的兩種典範。

The dispute between Mencius and Xunzi is a long-standing issue within studies on Confucianism. This paper considers the possibility of resolving the confrontation between Mencius and Xunzi by borrowing inspiration from the words of Confucius: “The wise delight in the waters; the benevolent delight in the mountains. The wise are active; the benevolent are tranquil. The wise are joyful; the benevolent are long-lived.” In a modern society with a plurality of values, no set of theories can or should cover all types of personalities, but rather, we should seek out the possibility of a “plural truth.” Just as Confucius has mentioned, people are able to be distinguished as “the wise” or “the benevolent.” Thus, we may employ the idea of “metaphor” from Chinese philosophy as the criterion of aesthetic norms to replace the approaches of Western logic. we do not need to attempt to divide the “benevolent system” and “wise system” schools of thought based on strict definitions. On the contrary, we should explore the types of “universe-nature” and “society-economy” through the thinkers' being and how they lived; and furthermore, by pursuing how thinkers perceived the reality of landscapes and society, we are able to integrate their own systems of personality. That is to say, Mencius was deeply influenced by Zou-Lu 鄒魯 culture, and by experiencing the “mountain type of universe-nature” of the Zou-Lu, he was able to finalize the “mountain type personality”—placing “benevolence,” “tranquility” and “longevity” at the core of his system; in contrast, Xunzi was profoundly influenced by Qi-Zhao 齊 趙 culture, and through experiencing the “water (aesthetic) type of universenature” of the Qi-Zhao, he realized the “water (aesthetic) type personality”— placing “wisdom,” “activity” and “joy” at the heart of the system. Due to their implied ambiguity and inclusiveness, the “mountain type” and the “water (aesthetic) type” systems—demarcated by aesthetic embodiment—both possessed fluidity and the ability to blend, and in this manner, they lacked a rigidity which could have led to conflict; in other words, their traits facilitated better interaction within the Confucian system.