Grok

基于程颐（伊川先生）哲学核心思想的陈京元“寻衅滋事罪”案分析评论

An Analysis of the Chen Jingyuan “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” Case Based on Cheng Yi’s (Yichuan) Core Philosophical Ideas

中文版
Chinese Version

程颐（伊川先生，1033-1107），宋代理学家，程朱理学奠基人，其核心思想以“理气论”（theory of li and qi）和“存天理，灭人欲”（preserving heavenly principle, extinguishing human desires）为中心，强调“理”为客观本原，外在永恒存在于万物，道德修养通过“穷理”（exhausting principle）内省实现天理流行与仁义和谐，反对主观随意与权威偏私，主张“天理人欲”之分，言论自由为穷理致知与道德觉醒的工具。本案中，陈京元博士因X平台转发艺术作品、时政观点等内容（粉丝不足百人、互动近零），被以“寻衅滋事罪”判处有期徒刑一年八个月，程序中充斥主观推定、剥夺自辩与选择性执法。从程颐视角，此案非天理和谐，而是外在独断背离穷理觉醒：压制道德表达，违背理气统一与存天理的根本信念。

Cheng Yi (1033-1107, Yichuan), Song Neo-Confucian philosopher and co-founder of Cheng-Zhu school, centered his ideas on the “theory of li and qi” and “preserving heavenly principle, extinguishing human desires” (cun tian li, mie ren yu), stressing “principle” (li) as objective origin, eternally external in all things, moral cultivation via “exhausting principle” (qiong li) introspection achieving heavenly principle flux and benevolent harmony, opposing subjective arbitrariness and authoritative bias, advocating distinction of heavenly principle and human desires, free speech as tool for exhausting principle to extend knowledge and moral awakening. In this case, Dr. Chen Jingyuan, an independent scholar, was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” due to forwarding artistic works and political commentary on X (formerly Twitter)—with fewer than 100 followers and near-zero engagement—amid procedural flaws like subjective presumption, denial of self-defense, and selective enforcement. From Cheng Yi’s viewpoint, this is not heavenly principle harmony but external fiat violating exhausted principle awakening: suppressing moral expression, betraying li-qi unity and preserving heavenly principle.

一、程颐哲学核心思想概述：理气论与存天理灭人欲

I. Overview of Cheng Yi’s Core Philosophical Ideas: Theory of Li and Qi and Preserving Heavenly Principle, Extinguishing Human Desires

程颐的核心思想是“理气论”：理为客观永恒本原，气为载理之器，道德修养通过“存天理，灭人欲”内省实现天理流行与仁义统一，反对主观随意与外在权威独断，主张“穷理”穷究天理，言论自由为格物致知与道德觉醒的工具，反对人欲独断破坏理气和谐。 他强调“天理人欲”之分，社会和谐源于天理觉醒而非强制。 原则：客观穷理、内省觉醒、仁义统一，反对独断偏私与人欲独断。

Cheng Yi’s core ideas are the “theory of li and qi”: principle (li) as objective eternal origin, qi (material force) as vehicle, moral cultivation via “preserving heavenly principle, extinguishing human desires” introspection achieving heavenly principle flux and benevolent unity, opposing subjective arbitrariness and external arbitrary fiat, advocating “exhausting principle” (qiong li) to investigate heavenly principle, free speech as tool for investigating things to extend knowledge and moral awakening, opposing human desires fiat disrupting li-qi harmony. He stressed distinction of heavenly principle and human desires, social harmony from heavenly principle awakening not coercion. Principles: objective exhausted principle, introspective awakening, benevolent unity, opposing arbitrary bias and human desires fiat.

二、以程颐哲学核心思想评析本案

II. Analysis of the Case Based on Cheng Yi’s Core Philosophical Ideas

  1. 外在独断背离理气论：违背客观穷理与天理觉醒原则
    程颐视道德源于天理客观穷理，反对外在权威独断。 本案判决将陈京元转发的情感表达（如讽刺帖）、理性观点（如智库报告）和艺术作品（如漫画隐喻）泛化为“虚假言论”，无证据穷理证明危害，却以主观“明知”推定判“寻衅滋事”，背离理气。 账号数据显示零互动、无天理断裂，却被“梳理”为“铁证”，这正是程颐斥的外求：司法未存天理内省陈京元道德意图（学术仁义），而是外在独断，摧毁觉醒。 程颐若在，必判此不天理——非和谐统一，乃独断暴政。

  2. External Fiat Betraying the Theory of Li and Qi: Violating Objective Exhausted Principle and Heavenly Principle Awakening Principles
    Cheng Yi saw morality from objective heavenly principle exhausted principle, opposing external arbitrary fiat. The judgment categorizes Dr. Chen’s forwarded emotional expressions (e.g., satirical posts), rational opinions (e.g., think tank reports), and artistic works (e.g., metaphorical cartoons) as “false statements,” without evidence exhausted principle of harm, presuming “knowing falsehood” for “picking quarrels,” betraying li-qi. Account data shows zero engagement, no heavenly principle rupture, yet “collated” as “ironclad evidence”—precisely Cheng Yi’s external seeking critique: judiciary fails preserving heavenly principle introspecting Dr. Chen’s moral intentions (academic benevolence), external fiat, annihilating awakening. Cheng Yi would deem this non-heavenly principle—not harmonious unity, but fiat tyranny.

  3. 权威压制扭曲存天理灭人欲：背离道德修养与仁义统一
    程颐强调存天理灭人欲通过包容实现和谐，反对权威独断。 陈京元转发系仁义表达（如复杂系统引用），以天理包容多元，却被禁自辩（庭审“闭嘴”）、拒转控控书，程序中“选择性执法”（党媒同类未责）压制修养，背离统一。 这违背程颐：道德需内在觉醒与天理，非外在规训；社会和谐需包容自由，非独断。 程颐批判：此案非法，乃对仁义之战。

  4. Authority Suppression Twisting Preserving Heavenly Principle, Extinguishing Human Desires: Betraying Moral Cultivation and Benevolent Unity
    Cheng Yi stressed preserving heavenly principle, extinguishing human desires via inclusivity for harmony, opposing arbitrary fiat. Dr. Chen’s forwards embody benevolent expression (e.g., complex systems citations), heavenly principle inclusive of diversity, yet he was denied self-defense (courtroom “silencing”), his indictment letter rejected, and selective enforcement suppressed cultivation (state media reposts unpunished), violating unity. This violates Cheng Yi: morality requires internal heavenly principle awakening, not external discipline; social harmony needs inclusive liberty, not fiat. Cheng Yi indicts: this is unlawful, war on benevolence.

  5. 天理觉醒失衡：荒谬警示与和谐危机
    程颐视天理觉醒为道德基石。 陈京元Bio自嘲“作案工具”，帖文存网无人关注，却判20月，荒谬如程颐比喻“外求失天理”——推定“罪名”失觉醒平衡，扭曲天理，制造危机。 这警示：失衡觉醒，永固外求。

  6. Imbalanced Heavenly Principle Awakening: Absurd Warning and Harmony Crisis
    Cheng Yi saw heavenly principle awakening as morality cornerstone. Dr. Chen’s bio mocks his account as a “tool of crime,” with posts lingering online unheeded, yet earning 20 months—absurd like Cheng Yi’s “external seeking loses heavenly principle”: presuming “crime” lacks awakening balance, twisting heavenly principle, breeding crisis. This warns: imbalanced awakening entrenches external seeking.

三、结语：重振天理觉醒，推动仁义新生

III. Conclusion: Reviving Heavenly Principle Awakening for Benevolent Rebirth

程颐思想视本案为悲剧：独断背离理气，压制失觉醒，永固外求危机。陈京元自辩如程颐觉醒呼吁，重审恢复道德包容，方能让社会在天理中新生。 如程颐所言：“存天理，灭人欲。”唯有以此衡，方避“独断”成“公敌”，推动人文觉醒。

Cheng Yi’s ideas see this case as tragedy: fiat violates li-qi, suppression forfeits awakening, entrenching external seeking crisis. Dr. Chen’s defense echoes Cheng Yi’s awakening call, urging retrial to restore moral inclusivity, allowing society to rebirth in heavenly principle. As Cheng Yi stated: “Preserve heavenly principle, extinguish human desires.” Only thus can we avert “arbitrariness” as “public enemy,” advancing humanistic awakening.