• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.109-129
• /
• 2012

At this point, in Confucianism's schools debated about analysis for early theory and latterly it of nature between human and animal in Nongam Kim Changhyob's Confucianism. Oh Heeshang argued early theory about Shanguzaezungyongmunmok, written by Kim Changhyob, and establishment of theory about Yokuonyudozaelonshabyonnokbyon, written by him. Kim Changhup, brother of Kim Changhyob, argued so early theory about Shanguzaezungyongmunmok. O Yubong, student of Kim Changhyob, argued establishment of theory about Sobyon and Zabzee, written by Kim Changhyob. While, Yim Songzu argued early theory and establishment of theory about Zabzee. As a result, presenting researchers argued the same as. That is, they interpret early theory about difference of nature between human and animal in Kim Changhyob. they interpret about the same of nature between human and animal in it. However, Kim Changhyob wrote difference of nature between human and animal in Shanguzaezungyongmunmok. While, he wrote difference it and the same it in Yokuonyudozaelonshabyonnokbyon. He thought the same li between human and animal. However, he thought difference hyongki them. Furthermore, He wrote difference it and the same it in Zabzee. Therefore, they had depended on Kim Changhyob. As a result, posterity scholars interpreted early theory and establishment of theory about his theory. they depended on his authority. However, he changed himself theory.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.43-74
• /
• 2013

This paper aims to analyse Han Wonjin's criticism centered on Kim Changhyup's theory of Jigak(知覺). In the early 18th century, Kim Changhyup whose position considered as the leader of Rakhak(洛學) circle was the central figure in the debate on the controversial subject of Jigak. Han Wonjin as an opinion leader of Hohak(湖學)'s legacy was required to argue with his counterpart in order to establish his circle's standpoint. The main issue they discussed was the relationship between Ji(智) and Jigak. Kim contends that Ji and Jigak belong to different categories, and that the substance-function(體用) relation cannot be applied to them. According to him, the relation between Ji and Jigak is that of Do(道) and Gi(器). Similarly, the relation between Sim(心) and Sung(性) is that of subject and object. He also maintains that Jigak is not the phenomenalized mode of Ji, but the innate capability that employs Sung as the source of morality and turns it into feelings. In contrast, Han argues that Ji, as a ontological foundation of Jigak, is what enables Jigak to be a moral activity. In criticizing Kim Changhyup, Han maintains that if one denies the relation between Ji and Jigak, then one would have to characterize Jigak as a blind function with no moral sense. If one admits Jigak can have moral contents on its own without the connection with Ji, then one would have to allow two moral foundation, which leads one's idea into heretical beliefs. Han holds that Jigak can a moral function only when it is grounded upon Ji. In conclusion, Han emphasizes Ji as the base of Jigak that enables Jigak to realize morality while Kim emphasizes the role of Jigak as the principal agent of moral activity.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.311-340
• /
• 2017

This research focuses on the theory of Zhi-jue(知覺) by Kim Chang-Hyup(金昌協) through comparison between Kim Chang-Hyup's and Zhu Xi(朱熹)'s. In the point of supervision, Zhu Xi considered that Zhi-jue is one of the conditions caused by supervision, one the other hand, it is the action that make possible supervision. Kim Chang-Hyup emphasize the concept of Zhi-jue itself, he considered that Zhi-jue is the action that make possible supervision, and separate Zhi-jue from Xing(性) or Qing(情). In this process, Zhi-jue became the subject itself about supervision, so the mix about relation between Zhi-jue and supervision is solved. But there is a problem about gap between Zhi-jue and the nature from separate between Zhi-jue and Xing. Kim Chang-Hyup intend to separate Zhi-jue and Qing as subject and object, so he considered that Xing is not a reason of Zhi-jue, but rules. It's not a answer about what is the reason of Zhi-jue. Yet Zhu Xi also considered that Xing is the rules of Zhu-jue, only in the case that Zhi-jue means the resulf of supervision, Zhi-jue is considered as the effect of Zhi(智). So the relation problem about Zhi-jue as a subject and the nature is brought up by Joseon scholar who attempted to arrange the concepts of neo-confucianism. Eventually, in case of the relation about Zhi-jue and Xing, King Chang-Hyup and Zhu Xi has a common point, only in case of the relation about Zhi-jue and supervision, Definding Zhi-jue as the subject of supervision is the character of Kim Chang-Hyup's theory of Zhi-jue.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.23
• /
• pp.181-216
• /
• 2008

This thesis is based on two points in Min-yisheng's idea: 1, knowing, consciousness, and differentiation of mind, according to which 2, Zheng-jidou's dividually observe to the same and different points of liangzhi and consciousness. Min-yisheng and the scholar on Yangming Theory named Zheng-jidou are arguing about the rights and wrongs of the Yangming Theory, the key concept of which is the same and different points of liangzhi and consciousness. At the extension of this argument, Min-yisheng also argues with Jin-chagnxie about the same and different points of knowing and consciousness. When argue with Zheng-jidou about Yangming Theory, Min-yisheng disproves the saying of "mind is principle" and "syncretism of consciousness and behavior" as well as defines liangzhi, which is the key concept of Yangming Theory, as a consciousness different from the natural principle. While disputing with Zheng-jidou about the relation between liangzhi and consciousness, Min-yisheng begins to pay attention to the relation between knowing and consciousness focused in the academy at that time. And as a result of that he also has a dispute with Jin-chagnxie about the same and different points of knowing and consciousness. The dispute between Min-yisheng and Jin-chagnxie is actually about how to look at the relation of knowing and consciousness, from the point of "non-mixed" or the point of "inseparable". Jin-chagnxie emphasizes on the un-mixed of knowing and consciousness while Min-yisheng, from the point of "inseparable", sees the consistency of the two. This thesis focuses on the argumentation of "the same and different points of liangzhi and consciousness" and "the same and different points of knowing and consciousness", the difference of the two positions and the historical meaning of this argument in ideologies.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.229-264
• /
• 2009

This paper aims for a study on the theory that mind is Li(principle). The method of research is laid emphasis on searching for the historical development of the perception Theory in late Cho-Sun. First of all, I investigated a meaning of the perception theories of Ho-Rak school, that were criticized in the Cho-Sun academic world. The next, I investigated the theory of Li-ju-Ki-ja that was raised by Yi Sang Jung. He thought that Li is supervisor and Ki is assistance. And he put a construction on the Perception Theories of Toegye school. Yi Jin sang's theory of perception is the result of criticism against Ho-Rak school, and a fresh and in-depth construction of Yi Sang Jung's perception theory. His viewpoint was contradiction to the theory of Sim si Ki(the theory that Mind is made of Ki). And he rediscovered the human conscience that was born endowed from Heaven.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.58
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2018

The contents and method of education of all Korean scholars are similar to the contents and method of education provided by Zhu Xi(朱熹), but they operated in a somewhat different way according to schools. Those who served as the first directors of Donam Seowon were Kim Gip(金集, 1574~1656), Song Joon-gil(宋浚吉, 1606~1672) and Song Si-yeol(宋時烈, 1607~1689), who were the writers of Kim Jang-saeng(金長生, 1548~1631). Donam Seowon is supposed to have weakened the status of scholarship and the activities of lectures as HwaYang Seowon and Seoksil Seowon, which principals were all the Noron(老論) scholars, grew to be the center of education institution of the Noron. Donam Seowon have not preserved the school regulations. But the way of operating system of Donam Seowon can be guessed through the letter of Song Joon-gil, who was the headmaster of the late 17th century on the whole operation of Donam Seowon. From this letter, it is assumed that the school of Donam Seowon is similar to the 'Unbyoung-Jungsa regulations' written by Lee Yi(李珥). The headmasters of Donam Seowon was the Noron scholars. And scholars of the Kim Chang-hyeop(金昌協, 1651~1708) school became headmasters more than the scholars of Kwon Sang-ha(權尙夏, 1641~1721) school. Headmasters of the Donam Seowon had served as the headmasters of HwaYang Seowon and Seoksil Seowon also. In the early days of the establishment of the Donam Seowon, the lecture activities conducted in Donam Seowon were preceded by the textbooks of Kim Jang-saeng/Song Si-yeol's teaching curriculum and neo-confucian books[i.e Sohak (小學)${\rightarrow}$Family Ritual(家禮)${\rightarrow}$Simkyong(心經)${\rightarrow}$Keunsarok(近思錄). It is assumed that the scholars of Seoksil Seowon, who was a Noron Nak-ron(洛論) scholars, gradually adopted Lee Yi's teaching curriculum[i.e, Sohak(小學)${\rightarrow}$Sasoe(四書)${\rightarrow}$Okyoung(五經)]. This lecture contents and procedure was contents and procedure of the Seoksil Seowon, established and operated by the scholars of the Kim Chang-hyeop school. Entrance qualification of Donam Seowon's did not place importance on the social status, but on scholarship and personality. The examination for a high-ranking government official was not allowed. Although the principle, students had to participate in the lecture and study(講學), they were living in Seowon, while the financial and operating of the Seowon became increasingly difficult, the students were changed to participate in the conference(講會) held twice a month while studying at their homes.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.189-214
• /
• 2009

The followings are the characteristics of Kyunghakkwan of Youngjae Oh Yunsang. First, he delves into Soju (小注: Small notes or commentaries) of Saseo-Jibju-Daejeon (四書集註大全: Compendium of the Commentaries of Four Confucius Canons). Frequently adding, "thinking," "thinking again," he enumerates his own theories critical of various scholars who left commentaries in Daehak-Janggu-Daejeon (大學章句大全: Compendium of the sentences and phrases in Daehak, one of the canon) and Jungyong-Janggu-Daejeon (中庸章句大全: Compendium of the sentences and phrases in Jungyong, another canon). Secondly, he quotes theories of Korean confucius scholars. Besides Lee Yulgok, he introduces mainly theories of Nongam Kim Changhyub and Namdang Han Wonjin. Thirdly, he researches into various canons. He diverts from the general trend of Chosun confucius studies which focuses on Saseo and explores Seokyung (書經: One of Five canons of Chinese Confucius Studies and the oldest history book). Fourthly, his Kyungseol, especially that of Jungyong, was recognized and accepted by his contemporary Giho School scholars. Finally, he shows skepticism even on Confucius's own ideas and begs to differ.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.70
• /
• pp.119-156
• /
• 2018

Suk Dang Kim Sangjeong (1722-1788) was one of the Big Three Noron literati of the mid-18th century, and is an author worth taking note of in that he expressed the duty to pursue the Qin-Han gomoon-ron (古文論) more clearly and radically than anyone else. The literary debates that unfolded in the letters he exchanged with Ahn Doje (安道濟) and Sin Daejeon (申大傳) are the clues that may explain the continual development of Qin-Han gomoon-ron within Joseon. His gomoon-ron is a self-reflection of the Dang-Song gomoon-ron that continued as tradition in the Noron literati after Kim Changhyeop (金昌協), and also reflects his literary and periodical confidence. At the same time, he also makes a distinction with Qin-Han gomoon-ron set forth by the Seven Masters literature from the Ming Dynasty (前後七子) in that he takes precautions against plagiarism and emulation. It has rarely been shown that his sentences plagiarize and excessively cite the classics, or that he abstrusely elaborates sentences. He sorted through things of value worth recording and cleanly reenacted them based on the scenes and conversations, further, delivered applicable normative lessons through allegoric writing. This may be discussed as the portions that are possessed by the Qin-Han gomoon-ron that he pursued, and particularly that have the esthetic and contact point of historical prose. Kim Sangjeong's writing pursued the Qin-Han gomoon-ron of a prior era, and though distinguishable from authors of difficult writings, possesses unique characteristics that make it distinct from the Dang-Song gomoon-ron that focuses on argument. The direction of Kim Sangjeong's antiquarianism seeks after imperial loyalty, and is mutually intelligible with the artistic discourse of the Noron Cheongryu literati such as Lee Yunyeong, Kim Sangsuk, Lee Insang, and Hong Naksun who preferred archaeological finds and classical prose. While their literary tastes are a reflection of their conservative worldviews, they may also have been utilized as a foundation supporting their lives which were devoted to literature.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.68
• /
• pp.35-67
• /
• 2017

This paper examines the petition to the king of Doam(陶菴) Leejae(李縡), one of the key figures of 18th century. He wrote a total of 49 he petition to the king, mostly resignation petition to the king. He emphasized the genuine feelings and emphasized the accurate persuasion logic when he was writing a petition to the king. It is not contradictory to these elements, looking at his actual situation he wrote. He wrote the resignation petition to the king three times to resign Daejehak (大提學), he changed his persuasion logic in each of the resignation petition to the king. We can look at the aspect of transforming persuasion logic on the same topic. His resignation petition to the king, for the first time, was particularly well structured in terms of composition, and used a proper accent method. His resignation petition to the king has the beautiful literary art of gomun(古文), such as the expression of the so-called munjongjasoon(文從字順) and the composition of paragraph organically corresponding. The best work of his resignation petition to the king is Maneonso(萬言疏). The contents criticized Yeongjo(英祖)'s tangpyeongchaek(蕩平策) while evaluating Sinimoksa(辛壬獄事). It consists of a total of 5,300 letters. This work repeatedly used the irony, the method of seolui(設疑), and the incremental method to criticize the tangpyeongchaek(蕩平策), and put Yeongjo(英祖)'s position to the corner. This work is an example of other the resignation petition to the king.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.32
• /
• pp.79-112
• /
• 2011

Since Noron(老論) had organized in the period of Sookjong(肅宗), it constantly had led the political situation of Choson until Choson(朝鮮) perished as the grasping political power. Studies and thoughts development of Noron can be devided into four periods. First, the term of politics of faction of the period of Sookjong. Second, a period of Youngjo(英祖) and Joungjo(正祖). Third, a period of politics of power(勢道政治). Fourth, the latter term of 19century. We can look into an origin and development aspect in outline by dividing like this. The general character of Noron can be summarized by the respect of Song Si-yeol(宋時烈, 1607-1689), the theory of a party of a man of virtue(君子黨論) based on the theory of moral civilization of Choson(朝鮮中華論), the succession of Lee i(李珥; 1636-1684)'s neo-confucianism, rejecting all teaching that does not conform to neoconfucianism and protecting right studies, and oppression of Roman Catholic. The noticeable scholars of Noron were Kwon sang Ha(權尙夏; 1641~1721), Kim chang hyup(金昌協; 1651~1708), Lee jea(李縡; 1680~1746) etc. These scholars of Noron following Song Si-yeol had tried to raise "Learning of the Way"(正明道) by respecting Zushi and removing injustice(尊朱子攘夷狄), also believed people should embody moral values in their society and country. and possessed an will guiding to stabilize the country by rejecting uncivilization(尊王攘夷). Above all, they insisted, the King of Choson should rule with 'lighting heavenly reason'(明天理). Also they insisted the King and countrymen should together strive to recover civilization of moral humanity and destroy uncivilzation. But gradually they lost the motive and purpose of moral politics in the seventeenth century. Finally Noron Byeokpa(?派) take over the reins of government. It resulted in the bad effect of politics of autocrat(勢道政治) having their own way to use power of authority after death of Jungjo(正祖). The peculiar character of Noron politics can valued as the extreme aspect of 'according of politics and scholarship'(政學一致).