• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.261-289
• /
• 2017

This article is a follow-up on the concept of philosopher/writer and its transformation in the Age of Enlightenment - 1. the dictionary meaning of the term 'philosopher/writer' and the origins of 'literary fields' of the Enlightenment era. In this article, we analyzed changes in the literary field in the late $17^{th}$ century after the expansion of the publishing market. We examined the conflict surrounding philosophers' identifying between modern and traditional philosophers. We have validated that the formation of new readers has made traditional philosophers more sensitive to the 'horizon of expectations' of readers. Some biographical works are also one of our concern. By the end of the $17^{th}$ century, philosophers and writers suddenly became objects of biographical works unlike in the past. Through our research, we found that readers have sought the arrival of a new hero, a great philosopher or a great writer, that will lead a new era, and due to this anticipation, it has led to the publication of biographical works. In this process, we have revealed conceptual changes about authors, writers, philosophers, and so on. In the next article, we will continue advanced discussion on the concept of philosopher/writer.

• The Journal of Internal Korean Medicine
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.87-99
• /
• 2011

In the 18th century, Xu Lingtai (徐靈胎) and Yoshimasu Todo (吉益東洞) were medical revolutionaries. They emphasized researches about synthesis of formulae, efficacy of medication and observation and then classification of clinical phenomena, so they assumed a modern scientific character. But, there were clear differences between their academic thoughts. In this paper, we examine the causes of difference in three fields, i.e. traditional culture, viewpoints of talented people and academic personality. The first, difference was due to traditional culture. Chinese medicine has a long history and heavy traditional culture. Yin-Yang (陰陽) theory, Five Phase(五行) theory, Viscera and Bowels (臟腑) theory and Meridian and Collateral (經絡) theory stemmed from everyday practice, and Chinese people learn these theories from experience and observation. From the standpoint of Chinese people, particularly scholarly doctors [儒醫] such as Xu Lingtai, it was easy to debate medical theories. In contrast, Japanese traditional culture didn't have as long a history as China. Thus as a necessity, it was harder to disseminate traditional Chinese medicine theories in Japan. Yoshimasu Todo simplified it by cutting out the superfluous traditional Chinese medicine theory, so at that time it must have been shocking to the Japanese medical world's trends. The second, difference was due to viewpoints of talented experts. From the standpoint of Xu Lingtai, above all, medicine is just a learning, only a kind of technique, even more not a means of living. Xu Lingtai was concerned with the appearance of very talented experts such as 'great man' (偉人), and 'exceptional man' (奇士) who carried out medical research. Instead of cultivating a few talented people, Yoshimasu Todo tried to produce a large number of clinicians quickly who could treat ordinary people. The third was due to personality difference. As Xu Lingtai threw away Confucianism and studied medicine in his youth, although he had a critical attitude, he was always mild-mannered. Yoshimasu Todo always had a clearly critical and rebellious nature. Personality influenced their literary spirit and learning style, so although both advocated reactionism, the academic thought of Xu Lingtai was reformative and mild, while that of Yoshimasu Todo was revolutionary and fierce. Xu Lingtai and Yoshimasu Todo had considerably similar research domains and academic thought, so it is proper for them both to serve as examples for making a comparative study of medical history in China and Japan in 18th century.