• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.343-370
• /
• 2018

Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) completed "Siqibianzheng"("四七辨證") at the age of 72, and later had the argument over Runwuxingtongyilunzheng(人物性同異論爭) with his disciple, Lee Sik(李?). Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) had the position of Runwuxingyilun(人物性異論) and Lee Sik(李?) Runwuxingtonglun(人物性同論). Yet, the argument over Runwuxingtongyilunzheng(人物性同異論爭) had been forgotten and "Siqibianzheng"("四七辨證") could be acknowledged because Toegye school(退溪學派) and Yulgok school(栗谷學派) were conflicting and criticizing each other's stance at that time. It seems like Lee Hyeon-Il(李玄逸)'s "Liqulishilunsiduanqiqingshubian"("栗谷李氏論四端七情書辨") had a great influence on the completion of "Siqibianzheng" ("四七辨證"). Lee Yi(李珥)'s thought of Siduan(四端) and Qiqing(七情) was 'the position of Hunlun(渾淪)' that 'Qiqing(七情) includes Siduan(四端)', and Lee Hwang(李滉) had the 'position of Fenkai(分開)' that Siduan(四端) and Qiqing(七情) should be interpreted differently. Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) criticized the stance of Hunlun(渾淪) from the position of Fenkai(分開). What did Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) try to pursue through "Siqibianzheng"("四七辨證")? This fact tends to make us forget the controversy over Runwuxingtongyilunzheng(人物性同異論爭) between Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) and disciple Lee Sik(李?). Now we know the fact that Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) criticized Lee Yi(李珥) in "Siqibianzheng"("四七辨證"), but don't care much about the fact that Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) caused the controversy over Runwuxingtongyilun(人物性同異論). Why "Siqibianzheng"("四七辨證") has remained in our memory even though it was an important one? It might be because "Siqibianzheng"("四七辨證") had an impact on Lee Sik(李?), Shin Hu-Dam(愼後聃), and even Jeong Yak-Yong(丁若鏞) in the process of summarizing the arguments over Siduanqiqinglunzheng(四端七情論爭) since Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) regardless of whether Jeong Si-Han(丁時翰) had hoped it or not.