• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.130
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to justify the following four points. 1) Both communitarianism maintaining perfectionism and liberalism maintaining state neutralism are wrong. Communitarian liberalism is right. 2) If we accept a standpoint of communitarian liberalism, every state must make its own moral textbook for the achievement of common good. Of course, it dose not mean that a government must be an author of moral textbook. 3) The subjects of unification education and democratic citizenship education must be included in moral textbook. The crucial difference between moral education and civic education lies not in the educational subject but in the educational method. In order to internalize communal values and virtue, moral education prefer reflective internalization to indoctrination. But civic education prefer indoctrination to reflective internalization. 4) An desirable Korean who shares Korean values and virtue, provisional moral truth of Korea is a citizen of two isms, namely nationalism and cosmopolitanism.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.123
• /
• pp.57-86
• /
• 2012

Many contemporary philosophers argue that modern philosophy is only the philosophy being imprisoned in subject and consciousness without communicating other subjects with language. They criticize that it is solipsistic. Today, those who are taking part in the communication theory, hermeneutics, and de-constructivism are trying to overcome this problem. The practical philosophers, especially those who advocate communintarianism criticize that modern libertarianism is not free from the isolated autonomy and breaks the solidarity of the traditional community with treating formally others. They criticize Kant's philosophy in the same way. But it is unreasonable. Because Kant was not the philosopher who pursued the same philosophy of subjectivity and liberalism as the earlier modern philosophers pursued. He tried to criticize its limits and overcome them. Especially he did not remain within the modern subjectivity, but rather tried to come up with the inter-subjectivity communicating between subjects. He showed this side through the 'sensus communis'. He thought of a judgement of taste as an effect resulting from the free play between imagination and understanding, and postulated the 'sensus communis' as a ground of the universal validity of this judgement. Therefore this 'sensus communis' is the subjective principle of a judgement of taste. Furthermore, he did not treat this 'sensus communis' merely as a self-relation of a subject, but rather developed it into an communicative relation among subjects. This position of Kant enables us to seek the harmony between the aesthetic sphere and social-moral sphere, and to overcome the conflicts between the autonomy of the liberalism and the solidarity of the communitarianism. Especially, his 'sensus communis' can be developed into the 'critical hermeneutics' and the 'relational autonomy'. Therefore his 'sensus communis' has the possibility to overcome the negative points of the traditional community and the modern community, and to overcome the conflicts among the isolated selves occurring in today's society. Hence Kant's 'sensus communis' has still the important values in the contemporary philosophy, especially in the practical philosophy being now discussed over the relation between autonomy and solidarity.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.333-359
• /
• 2010

Both in the East and the West, the most classical question in classical political philosophy was 'what is truly a human virtue and a good life?' 'Human virtue' and 'Good life', and 'good State' are thus essentially tied together. Platon And Confucianism. We began with Platon and Confucianism's definitions of human virtue & good life, and 'good State'. This Essay attempts to systematically approach to what Confucianism thinks as a human virtue and a good life in contrast with Platon. Confucius asserted that the most humane human life is a civilized life and it means to realize the value of 'benevolence as a human virtue. 'Mencius also concurred that Confucius's explication of the good life was right. Moreover, he argued that to realize this, political practice should follow. Mencius discussed about 'Four Virtues', the essential goodness of human, confirmed by 'Four Clues (四端)' to talk about the possibility of realizing the good life and a good state. On the other hand, he devised Politics of benevolence.)' as a practical tool for it. An classica eastern philosophy(platon and confucianism) consider a human beings as human relationship. Confucianism believe in reality of the human mind & it's nature. Confucian human mind & it's nature is comprised of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom. Confucianism proposed that we have to approach to other man as benevolence.