• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.29
• /
• pp.55-88
• /
• 2010

Jeong Yakyong deconstructs the Li theory of human nature in order to restore the original tradition of Confucius and Mencius. He downgrades theoretical statuses of Taeguk(ultimate pole) and Li, and denies truth values of the sameness premise of human nature and Li. He argues that human nature must be non other than mind's preference, and thus that human substance must not be human nature, but mind. Since mind can do good things as well as bad things, he tries to lead mind to do good things by way of restoring a primitive worship for Sangje(heavenly emperor). However, his major concepts and premises do not fit with original meanings of old confucian biblical books. Futhermore, his preference theory of human nature contains many contradictions and errors. Thus, his theory could not be evaluated as one which had transcended the Li theory of human nature.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.9-33
• /
• 2014

이 논문은 중국 남송시대 성리학의 집대성자인 주자(朱子)(1130-1200)가 "중용"을 어떻게 분장절(分章節)하고, 그 구성을 어떻게 이해하였으며, 나아가 "중용"을 어떤 책으로 규정하면서 어떤 입장을 갖고 해석하였는지를 살펴보는 것을 목표로 한다. 주자는 이정(二程)형제가 "중용"을 "공문(孔門)에서 전한 심법(心法)"으로 정의한 입장을 수용하면서, "중용(中庸)"을 표창(表彰)하여 "예기(禮記)"에서 분리 독립시켜 사서(四書)의 하나로 정립하였다. 그는 40세 전후에 "장구" 및 "혹문"의 초고를 완성하고, 20여년 간 수정한 끝에 "중용장구"의 서문을 썼다. 주자는 "중용"이란 글을 최초로 나름의 원칙을 갖고 유기적인 체계속에서 33장으로 분장(分章)하고, 사대절(四大節) 혹은 육대절(六大節)로 그 체계를 나누었다. 그는 이러한 분장절(分章節)을 통해 "중용"이란 책은 중화(中和), 중용(中庸), 군자지도(君子之道)의 비은(費隱), 천도(天道)로서의 성(誠)과 인도(人道)로서의 성지(誠之), 그리고 천인합일의 길을 제시한 책으로 구성되어 있다고 말하였다. 나아가 우리는 주자가 "중용"이란 책을 공자의 손자인 자사(子思)가 도통의 단서를 계승하기 위해서 기술한 책이라고 말하면서, "서경(書經)" "대우모(大禹謨)"의 구절과 "중용"의 내용이 합치된다고 하는 주장을 살폈다. 마지막으로 우리는 주자의 "중용"해석에서 나타난 특징을 살펴보았다. 주자는 나름의 일관된 철학적 형이상학적 입장을 갖고 "중용"을 해석하였는데, 그의 해석에는 이기론(理氣論), 이일분수설(理一分殊說), 성즉리(性卽理), 성발위정론(性發爲情論), 그리고 존양(存養) 성찰(省察)의 수양법 등이 고스란히 반영되어 있다는 것을 살폈다. 그리고 우리는 주자가 이런 "중용" 해석을 통해 유학의 정통성을 정립함과 동시에 도불(道佛)을 위시한 여타 학파를 비판 극복하려고 했다는 점을 살폈다.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.77-102
• /
• 2014

The study will examine SeongHo Lee Yik(星湖 李瀷)'s thought through his ZhongYongJiShu("中庸疾書"). The book is said that dealing with what was not dealt with in ZhongYongZhanJu("中庸章句") by one's own understanding gained through doubt(懷疑를 통한 自得) is ZhongYongJiShu("中庸疾書"). As with a metaphor of a peach in HouShuo("後說"), SeongHo(星湖) wrote ZhongYongJiShu("中庸疾書") based on his own understanding through skepticism. He divides the chapters of the book using a different method. Chapters 2 to 11 are considered as KongziZhongYong(孔子中庸) that is, quotes of Confucius, and chapters 12 to 30 as explanatory texts that offer explanations of the quotes. Chapter 1 is preface and chapter 33 closing remark. However, a clear explanation is required for the reason why chapter 1 should be preface and chapter 33 should be closing remark. SeongHo(星湖) offers an explanation for the appearance of ZhongYong("中庸") in the title of the book. He indicated that for giving life to the meaning of chapter 1, ZhongHe(中和) should have been used in the place of ZhongYong ("中庸"), but since it was the preface of KongziZhongYong(孔子中庸), Zhong Yong("中庸") was used from KongziZhongYong(孔子中庸). SeongHo(星湖) followed XingJiLi(性卽理) based on the interpretation of chapter 1 and chapter 20. In this way, he followed a Neo-Confucian proposition which is called XingJiLi(性卽理), defining Xing(性). That showed his interpretation was still based on Zhuzi(朱子). According to SeongHo(星湖), ZhongYong("中庸") is mainly on Cheng(誠), and he dealt with Cheng(誠) in ZhongYong("中庸"). Since Cheng(誠) is an important concept in the later part of the book, ZhongYongJiShu("中庸疾書") was focusing on Cheng(誠) for the later part. However, Cheng(誠) was a concept that was not paid much attention than KongziZhongYong(孔子中庸), so it is just a part of explanatory texts, according to SeongHo(星湖).

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.31
• /
• pp.7-32
• /
• 2011

Cheng Yi(程?, 1033~1107) understood that nature is full of "changes(易)". And he noted that human being as part of nature also exists only in a series of changes, i.e. birth, growth, extinction and death. All things including human being arise from the same principle, or "Heavenly Principle." Hence human being can fundamentally be one with all other beings, or nature. It is called "Unity of all things(萬物一體)" and "Unity of heaven and human(天人合一)." This philosophical perspective cannot be regarded as being unique to Cheng only; neo-Confucian predecessors called "the five masters of the Northern Song(北宋五子)" anticipated Cheng's vision already. Nevertheless, Cheng elaborated on the shared vision, revealing his philosophical uniqueness. Cheng maintains that only human being receives the principle in the unstained form, and thereby is capable of being one with nature. The one who realizes her/his potential to be one with nature is a sage(聖人); for Cheng, the order and pattern found in nature is nothing other than moral principle that human beings have to live up to and vice versa. Cheng's idea on the principle which human being receives from Heaven no doubt relates to Mencian notion of the innate goodness of human nature(性善); the innate goodness of human nature is no other than Heavenly Principle, and to become a sage depends on whether one can realize her/his potential - human nature, i.e. Heavenly Principle in her/himself. For Cheng, human nature tantamount to Heavenly Principle has no evil quality; all the evil in the world comes from imperfect "physical endowment(氣質)," or "capacity(才)" which is various from person to person, making various personalities. Accordingly, the task of moral cultivation in Cheng's theory can translate into the matter of rectification of one's physical endowment.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.39-63
• /
• 2018

Kiho Academic in the late Joseon Korea, the negative effect of the Horak debate is amplified and the division within the academic is accelerated. However, the scholars of the Kiho Academic field put forth efforts to unify the academics with the same sense of responsibility to end the schism. Nevertheless, the scholars of the Kiho Academic have shown various differences in the process of accepting Neo-Confucianism, which creates new schools. Therefore, Kiho Academic in the late Joseon Korea coexisted with various schools with different academy positions. Some of the representative groups are Hwaseo, Nosa, Ganjae, Yeonjae, and Uuidang Schools. In addition, through the scholarly differentiation and the school division of the Kiho Academic, the debate on the mind that characterizes Neo-Confucianism of the late Joseon Korea has developed. However, there was a common value that everyone pursued in the middle of the debate: the construction of a moral ideal society, the ultimate goal of Neo-Confucianism. In conclusion, though the purpose they pursued was not fulfilled, it can be seen from the debate on the mind that they fiercely demanded that these requests were urgent in the late Joseon Korea This paper, therefore, the situation of the Kiho academic in the late of Joseon Korea, the problem consciousness of the scholars of the Kiho academic, and the issue and development of debate on the mind.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.62
• /
• pp.177-207
• /
• 2016

This essay is dealing with Yang-Ming Studies' fundamental ideas, which are the goal of learning, the cultivation theory, and the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue. The first, what is the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: It is generally accepted idea that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. But there are different suggestions about the ideas above. The reason is like this: Zhu-Zi-Studies was eager to be a sage through its cultivation theory. Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue criticized the cultivation theory in Zhu-Zi-Studies. Therefore, some people don't agree with the idea that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. In this essay, I try to demonstrate that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. The second, What is the major cultivation theory in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: The core cultivation theory is the Zhi-Ling-Zhi(Fulfillment Innate Knowledge of Goodness). For this, there is no question, but it is difficult how to learn and practice Zhi-Ling-Zhi in the daily life. I try to explain the right meaning and practice over Zhi-Ling-Zhi. The third, what is the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: It is general method in examine Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue that is comparing with Zhu-Zi-Studies. So there is a natural tendency focusing on the differences and similarity between Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue and Zhu-Zi-Studies. But If I say, what is the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue? That is the realization of Ren, Which is the harmony with all things in heaven and earth.