• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.117
• /
• pp.275-301
• /
• 2011

Die Einzelwissenschaften, zum Beispiel, die Biologie, die Psychologie, Soziologie behandeln heuzutage den Menschen. Aber sie alle behandeln den Menschen nach ihren eigenen Gesichtpunkten. Infolgedessen $k{\ddot{o}}nnen$ die Einzelwissenschaften den ganzen Menschen als den Menschen nicht $ber{\ddot{u}}ksichtigen$. Jhre Anthropologien $m{\ddot{u}}{\ss}en$ daher weitgehend $beschr{\ddot{a}}nkt$ bleiben. Dagegen entwickelte Max Scheler im letzten Jahrhundert eine neue philosophische Anthropologie. Seine Anthropologie ist wirklich neu und grundgehend. Diese Anthropologie bestimmt den Menschen als Geist, Freiheit, Person. Aber Max Scheler betont allzusehr "den Geist" in seiner philosophischen Anthropologie und infolgedessen distanzierter sich vom "Leben" in seinem $Menschenverst{\ddot{a}}ndnis$. Die Verfasserin sieht hier in dieser philosophischen Anthropologie einen Dualismus zwischen den Geist und das leben. Und Verfasserin findet eine Integration von Geist und Leben in der ontologischen Anthropologie bei Edith Stein. Diese ontologische Anthropologie charakterisiert sich $folgenderma{\ss}en$. 1. Es ist eine Anthropologie des "$Ge{\ddot{o}}ffnet$-Seins." 2. Es ist eine Anthropologie des "$Gef{\ddot{u}}hlt$-Seins." 3. Es ist eine Anthropologie des "Einheits-Seins." Die Verfasserin behauptet infolgedessen die ontologische Anthropologie bei Edith Stein sei eine geeignete und $sachm{\ddot{a}}{\ss}ige$ Anthropologie.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.71
• /
• pp.147-180
• /
• 2018

Seokjeong JEONG-JIK LEE is a scholar who tried to render a form of service for his country by writing works of literature during the crisis of the Period of Modern Enlightenment. He mainly expressed his perception of reality through an evaluation of historical figures. He left behind a text on the Analects of Confucius, which is known as the '10 questions and answers regarding the Analects of Confucius', in his posthumous work. It seems that he wrote it to be used as lecture material for his students. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze his recognition to the Analects of Confucius and its learning direction expressed in the writing '10 questions and answers regarding the Analects of Confucius'. With respect to the word ren(仁), which is the most fundamental concept of the Analects, he viewed his life in an introspective way from the standpoint of a 'Hoinyupe(好仁有蔽)', which means that if you like kindness and fairness but don't like learning it, then there will be negative effects, and through the 'Gwangwajiin(觀過知仁)', which means that you will know for sure kindness and fairness when you observe wrongdoing, not the general viewpoint of 'Humaneness or Love'. He tried to determine the meaning of ren, and virtue(德) through a common denominator from an overall point of view. It might have been a reflection of his thoughts that a sound comprehension of powerful countries was needed. In terms of relationship between Gunja(君子) and Myeong(命), Gunja needs to make constant efforts to understand Myeong as a talented person who can maintain order. The direction of learning was examined under three categories: Jongipjibang (從入之方), Gunjajiryu(君子之類), and Sumunihae(隨文而解). Jongipjibang is defined as a way to complement the weaknesses of leaners according to their characteristics and it promotes a focus on pushing ethics into practice rather than acquiring knowledge as it is today. Gunja was classified into 3 stages. However, it merely provides standards to help learners' understandings, so not all students may fall into these stages. Sumunihae gives explanations of commentaries on the book. Seokjeong remarked that the meaning was not different even if the same concept was annotated differently in the "Four Books". This is because the context was emphasized according to the principle of 'Sosisojeol Pilchakpilseom (所始所切, 必着必贍)'.