• The Journal of Korean Medical History
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.50-64
• /
• 2007

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.11
• /
• pp.255-292
• /
• 2005

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.295-317
• /
• 2014

This is the issue of this paper: What was the reason for Daoxuejia(道學家) in Song Dynasty to interpret 'ke-ji(克己)' as 'removing private desire'? 'ke-ji-fu-li'(克 己復禮)' is a phrase presented by Confucius as a way of practicing Ren(仁). The interpretations of Ren(仁) concept by Daoxuejia(道學家) have been reviewed. They interpreted Ren(仁) as Tian-li(天理) and thought its contents as 'Tian-di-shengwu-zhi-xin(天地生物之心)'. Zhu xi(朱熹) associated the concepts of sheng-sheng (生生), Xu(虛), Rou(柔), etc. and provided philosophic explanations on the interpretation of Ren(仁) raised newly by Ercheng(二程) and the interpretation of 'ke-ji-fu-li' (克己復禮). It is fact that Zhu xi criticized ardently Daoism but did not think nothing was worth taking from it. The stands of Daoxuejia(道學家) scholars in Song Dynasty on "removing private desire(去私欲)" presented in this paper could be the grounds supported such opinion.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.37
• /
• pp.159-195
• /
• 2013

A dispute between Zhu Xi(朱熹) and Lu Jiuyuan(陸九淵) is important on Neo-confucianism's development. The dispute causing from difference between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy had effected Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's each school's philosophical dispute. From Song dynasty to Ming Dynasty's most philosophers continuous disputed about Same & Difference on Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy, but did not appreciate it because of school's prejudice. On Qing dynasty, there appeared philosophers being free or less from school's prejudice. they looked at Same & Difference on Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy objectively. One of them was Li Fu(李?) philosopher of Lu Jiuyuan & Wang Yangming's school. He wrote Zhuziwannianquanlun("朱子晩年全論") objective investigation of Same & Difference on Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's Philosophy and reaction of Zhu Xi's school criticizing Wang Yangming's Zhuxiwannianzhunglun. Li Fu was Philosopher Lu Jiuyuan & Wang Yangming's school, but objectively compared between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's philosophy, analysed same of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan's philosophy and attempted philosophical agreement. Li Fu's this approaching is new interpretation and isn't uncritical admission from prejudice of Lu Jiuyuan & Wang Yangming's school.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.58
• /
• pp.307-336
• /
• 2018

This paper traces the historical genealogy of the subjectivity and the silsim (實心, true mind) that appear in Jeong In-Bo's "gukhak" (國學, the national learning) thought and illuminates its characteristics. In the modern East Asian history of thought, the beginning of the emergence of subjectivity and the silsim as the main philosophical topic comes from the Neo-Confucianism of Song Dynasty in China. Cheng Yi is the first thinker to emphasize subjectivity and consciousness. Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming inherit the Neo-Confucian thought based on Cheng Yi's principle of subjectivity, but only show difference in methodology. In the Chosun Dynasty, Jeong Je-Doo and his School were one example of the Neo-Confucian spirit of subjectivity and the silsim. Although Jeong In-Bo (鄭寅普) belongs to Jeong Je-Doo's school of Ganghwa in the school curriculum, he has only used it methodologically since he believed that Yangming's learning is more effective in the awareness and practice of the silsim. Especially noteworthy is that the principle of subjectivity led Jeong In-Bo to follow the frame of Zhu Xi's moral theory. Jeong's claim that selfish desire (jasasim 自私心) should be controlled by a conscious mind (silsim) being aware of the right and 'ought to do' corresponds to Zhu Xi's view that the moral mind (dosim 道心) should be selected in the conflict situation between sensual desire (insim 人心) and moral consciousness so that the insim should be supervised by the dosim. Such ethics is a position to emphasize the inner motive and the sense of duty of conduct, and there is no fundamental difference in Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming. At least on this point, it is necessary to look at modern and contemporary Korean studies from the perspective of continuity, not discontinuity from Confucian tradition.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.63-96
• /
• 2013

$L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) was one of the famous philosophers during the Southern Song period, and is called one of DongNamSanXian(東南三賢) together with ZhuXi(朱熹) and ZhangShi(張?). With his profound knowledge transmitted and uphold by JiaXue(家學), $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) established his learning system, interacting with scholars of those days. Principally, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s XinLun(心論) was based on Mengzi(孟子)' theory of LiangXin(良心) and BenXin(本心). $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) explained the meaning of such a conscience through ChuXin(初心) and Inner NeiXin(內心). According to $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙), ChuXin(初心) arouses when one encounters external things, and this one's intention enables us to make the right judgments over the outside objects. NeiXin(內心) means LiangXin(良心) and BenXin(本心) that recovered the ability of moral awareness. The important significances of $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s XinLun(心論) are XinWai WuDao(心外無道), and XinWaiWuTian(心外無天). Through these, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) emphasized that Tian(天), Dao(道), and Li(理) are one. $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) arranged a meeting of EHuSi(鵝湖寺), and exerted efforts to negotiate the academic differences between ZhuXi(朱熹) and LuJiuyuan(陸九淵). However, compared with LuJiuyuan(陸九淵) who asserted FaMingBenXin(發明本心), $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) put the emphasis on DaoWenXue(道問學) with self-awareness of conscience. Meanwhile, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) valued much of Jing(敬) like ZhuXi(朱熹). But, to $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙), Jing(敬) meant WuJianDuan(無間斷) of ChunYiBuZa(純一不雜) DaoDeXin(道德心), and implied the same as Cheng(誠). $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) stressed the reading and pursuit of study, however, he also asserted that Li(理) could be understood and realized through self-awareness of one's mind and its reflection, and working without interruption. $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s academic tradition of the XinXueDe XueFeng(心學的 學風), which reveals through compromise and confrontation with ZhuXi(朱熹), can be said that it will have a significant meaning of idealism of dispute in the Southern Song period.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.45-76
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to examine Toegye(退溪 李滉, 1501~1570)'s interpretation of Chungyong(中庸) who led the completion of the $Chos{\breve{o}}n$-style acceptance of Neo-Confucianism. This paper is focused on revealing the way that how he understood it according to the system of Neo-Confucianism that was proposed by Chu Hsi, rather than revealing the unique perspective of Toegye. I have the following configuration in this paper. First, I have set two directions of research for understanding of Chungyong, these were derived through the work that is an overview of cases of interpretation of Chungyong of $Chos{\breve{o}}n$. 1) How to understand the overall structure of Chungyong? 2) How to understand key concepts of Chungyong? Next, basing on these directions of research, I analyzed Toegye's interpretation of Chungyong. To grasp the structure of the whole, Toegye followed the segmentation system and structure of Chungyong changgu: Commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean, and to understand key concepts of Chungyong, he conducted in collaboration with concepts of Neo-Confucianism. Concretely, I analyze his work : Chungyong $suk{\breve{u}}i$(中庸釋義) and Chungyong $jil{\breve{u}}i$(中庸質疑) for asserting that he accepted the segmentation system and structure of Chungyong changgu. And I analyze his documents: letters to and from his disciples. This analysis focus on concepts of Chungyong for asserting that his understanding is in the context of Chu Hsi and other Neo-Confucian scholars's commentary. Toegye tried to reduce the diversity of interpretation and present one meaning.

• The Journal of Korean Medical History
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 2001

Started to get over the political difficulties, Juhee put his heart into solving the mystery of "I-Chingchamdonggye", and the final answer he got was right this. In his coordinate ideology system, he positioned "I-Chingchamdonggye", in other word Dan. No, actually he reconfirmed the uprightness of his ideology system through "I-Chingchamdonggye" and Dan. Justness of Juhee's scholarship which was accused to be false study is ascertained even in trifling Dan and the classics of Dan. The fruit seems to be "I-Chingchamdonggyegoi".

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.191-214
• /
• 2017

Zhangshi(張?) is a distinguished Chinese scholar, who is known as the South-east Three sages with Zhuxi(朱熹) Luzujian(呂祖謙). He is well known for his influence through exchanges of ideas with Zhu xi, but the research on his ideas is rather poor. This paper aims to understand the ideology in general by looking deeper into the study of Zhangshi's self-cultivation. Contents of his self-cultivation especially emphasized the subject of the mind in the way establishing the unity of heaven and human within the theory mind based on metaphysical foundation. It would be very meaningful to study his theory of self cultivation in his ideological tendencies. this essay Based on the unity of heaven and human, especially uniting the ways of heaven and morality, this essay is approaches to the way of self-cultivation. This paper first examines the meaning of heaven and human for Zhangsi, and presents a self-cultivation method as a unified method in two categories of relationships This not only emphasizes the subject of the mind in the process of realizing the unity of heaven and human, but also to highlight the possibility of human becoming one with the heaven. This research will be an important research work in understanding Zhangshi's own philosophical system.

• 유학연구
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.291-316
• /
• 2019

This paper is considering on investigation of the single nature theory of Wangyangming. Most of all, His single nature's theory is the results of critical reflections on the nature theory suggested by Zhuxi's learning. His theory has two unique characteristics. First, in contrast to Zhuxi's arguments, WangYangMing emphasize the single 'QiZhizhiXing(氣質之性)' which unify 'XingjiQi(性卽氣)' with Gaozi(告子)'s 'ShengzhiweiXing(生之謂性)' theory, and present view that 'nature is only one'. Second, He regards The Four Virtue(四德) and The Four Sprout(四端) as 'revealed virtues(表德)', defines them as 'already produced(已發)' virtues at the same time. Through this course, he tries to dismantle various nature and virtues which were constructed based on the criterion of 'XingerShang(形而上)' and 'XingerXia(形而下)'. The reason why he unify all the nature theory which Zhuxi had suggested as one nature's category, is not based on the theocratical interest but on the practical interest. In other words, he tries to provide the more practical methodology which each learner can directly embody and cultivate his own nature in his or her daily life.