• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.131-164
• /
• 2012

This paper is to make a generalization of Keyongyegimunrok(經義記聞錄) by Namdang Han Wonjin(1682~1751) whose historical positions of philosophy were contained, and to examine its established periods and the summaries of Ligi-Simseong Doseol(理氣心性圖說, illustrated Account of principle, Vital force, and Heart-mind) given in Appendix of Chap. 6. Total seventeen explanatory diagrams cover over the theory of principle and material force, theory of Heart-mind, theory of cultivation. These explanatory diagrams were produced systematically and easily to understand the pursuits of study, so-called Ho-hak(湖學), since Namdang becoming a member of the Yellow River(黃江) school. The philosophical argumentations of Namdang was usually succeeded by the orthodox stream of Ki-ho(畿湖) School transmitted from Ii, Song Si-yeol, Gwon Sang-ha. Ligi-wollyu-do(理氣源流圖), Ligi-dongjeong-do(理氣動靜圖), irwon-bunsu-do(一原分殊圖, 4 diagrams) are diagrams equivalent to Ki-ho School's ontology. As Ki-ho School's theory of Heart-mind, there are Seongjeong-hoenggan-do(性情橫看圖), Seongjeong-sugan-do(性情竪看圖), Seongjeong-chonghwoi-do(性情總會圖), Oseonghoju-do (五性互主圖), Oseongchubon-do(五性推本圖), Simseongmyohap-do (心性妙合圖), Simseongiji-do(心性二岐圖), Jungyongcheonmyeong-do(中庸天命圖), Insim dosim-do(人心道心圖), focusing on Simtongseongjeong-do(心統性情圖), and last diagram is Wihakjibang-do(爲學之方圖), which adapted from the diagram established by Ii and Song Si-yeol. The significance of Keyongyegimunrok(經義記聞錄) is comprehensive of the pursuits of the Yellow River school's studies, and provides evidence of a leading figure in Ho-hak.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.42
• /
• pp.9-37
• /
• 2014

This article is to review academic aspects of Iljae Lee Hang through Toegye Lee Hwang's comments. Iljae Lee Hang (一齋 李恒: 1499~1576) is a representative Neo-Confucian scholar in Honam area in 16th century. His Sung Confucianism was known to Toegye Lee Hwang by Gobong Gi Dae Seung and consequentially received attention from academic world. Lee Hang's Sung Confucianism, however, has hardly drawn attention since 17th century due to Lee Hwang's negative assessment. Impeaching Lee Hang's academic attitude and methods, Lee Hwang evaluated him as having many problems. Lee Hwang criticized that Lee Hang studied Neo-Confucianism with no great effort and he was so much confident to say 'Logic of the world does not deviate from this' based on Chengzi and Zhuzi's saying which was only appealing to his ideas. Lee Hang actually cited theories of Chengzi and Zhuzi and stressed self-complacency when necessary, which therefore made him fail to exhibit consistency. Iljae partly brought Lee Hwang's criticism upon himself. Lee Hwang's negative assessment is not to be literally accepted but his assessment is helpful indeed to critically examine Lee Hang's Neo-Confucianism.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.349-386
• /
• 2014

Noju Oh Hui-sang(1763-1833) is one of the neo-Confucian scholars representing with Hong Chik-pil the Kiho-Nak School from the late 18th to the early 19th century. He did sincerely not only succeed theories of Kiho School originated from Yulgok, but also strengthened the main view of the Nak faction by clarifying the theoretical stance of it derived from Kim Chang-hyop. Not only he does suggest critical points of view against Ho faction in terms of Horak Controversy, but also criticizes heterodox account, which raised by an inner circle of Nak faction. In this vein, Oh established the neo-Confucian ways of realization of morality and ideal society by setting up his own points of view on mind and bright virtues that are followed by various issues of Horak Controversy. My paper will examine the values of Oh's account of Nature-Principle in the light of intellectual historical context by paying a special attention to his critical views of Ho faction. Oh's main idea is how to systematize practical foundation of realizing morality. Thus, he wants to theoretically explain both the practice of morality and the reality of pure moral mind in order to establish concrete practices of them in the real world. In doing so, he pays attention to mutual inclusive relationship between Principle and Matter(ki:氣). The mutual inclusive relationship between them can be exactly applied into the relationship between mind and Nature. So, the realityof moral principle explicitly implies the pure goodness of moral agency. Furthermore, his elucidation of logical relationship between mind and Nature and its values via the ontological understanding of them is to set up a system of cultivation, i.e., realizing practical foundation of pure moral mind. In conclusion, we can evaluate that Oh's account of Nature-Principle, at least, aims not only at establishment of moral agency and its reality in a theoretical dimension, but also at a guarantee of their realization in the world.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.185-222
• /
• 2014

Nog-Moon Yim Seong-Joo(녹문 임성주) is a philosopher of late Choseon Dynasty of the 18th Century. He concluded that the debates between the school of Ho and that of Rack originated from the seclusion of Li(理) and Ki(氣), and theorized the new Li and Ki theory according to his own perspective. The prime point of Nog-Moon's Philosophy is said to be Li-Ki dongshil(理氣同實), Mind and Nature ilchi(心性一致) ; he proves his prime potints based on his pure and clean Ki substance. Thus Li-Ki is reduced to monism from dualism, and Mind-Nature(心 性) is reduced to mind. Since the basis of the existence of Mind is Ki(氣), Nog-moon's theory of Substance is concluded to be Ki-monism. Nog-Moon presents his great philosophy of Ki monism suggested by Jeong Myeong-Do's monistic methodology; he explains the universality of Substance and the diversity of Phenomenon with the logical structure of ilwonbunsu(一原分殊). The characteristics of Nog-Moon's philosophy is that ilwon(一原) and bunsu(分殊) are bonnyeon(本然) identical, which means Substance and Function(體用) are identical, or bonmalilchi(本末一致). It means Mind and Nature are bonnyeon(本然) identical, Ki and Mind and Nature are identical. With the expression of seongrihak (性理學) Gijil(氣質) is not different from bonnyeon(本然). Therefore 1 define the philosophy of Nog-Moon had been built on the context of a sage.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.28
• /
• pp.267-296
• /
• 2010

There exists various advantages and disadvantages with various thoughts in human beings. Therefore, it causes very complicated conflict by these diversity. It would be impossible if there would not be solved in classes, areas, schools, cultures whether it is simple or complicated. The proposition which totally shows these logic are Cheng-Yi(程頤, 1033-1107)'s principle is one but its manifestations are many(理一分殊) and Yul-gok(栗谷, 1536-1584)'s all penetrating Li and defining Ch'i. The main concern is how to realize concretly the pure goodness in theory of principal and vital force. There are opinion which Li shows it's pure goodness initiatively and it only has to be shown through Ch'i. Toi-gyeo(退溪, 1501-1570)and Woo-dam(愚潭, 1625-1707) thought the subjectivity lies on Li which shows itself even though Li can't shows itself. On the while, Yul-gok thought it realize through Ch'i, and Li has the superintendence which Li shows itself through Ch'i. Regardless with above, Nok-mun(鹿門, 1711-1788) had the point of view which pure goodness come to realize by the coincidence of Li and Ch'i, on the same time, it didn't matter whether the subjectivity lay on Li or Ch'i, Li showed by nature while Ch'i did by vital energy controlled and worked together. While Yul-gok established his theoretical ground of universality in the best pure good and its bases on the realization, Woo-dam put an emphasis on the practice and realization of goodness to endow with its positive meaning. On the contrary of it, Nok-mun emphasised vital enerty, that is, enabled to realize goodness which premised Li and Ch'i are reciprocally related to other in non-segregated condition(理氣不相離). Still however, the most important thing is how the rightness can be concreately explained which human have to practice its pure goodness. It is not restricted on the Sung Confucianism, it is the material question in philosophy.