• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.39
• /
• pp.195-220
• /
• 2013

The 'Localization' & the 'Popularization' issues always play an important role at the Chinese Marxism. The Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P) is still emphasizing the 'Localization', but the 'Popularization' did not received the Chinese theorists' attention. Therefore a new theory in 'Popularization of Chinese Marxism' is very small. But at the 17th National Convention, C.C.P offered a suggestion that entitled "Lead the popularization of Marxism in China". And diversity theorization involved popularization of Marxism is in motion by Chinese theoretician. Throughout history of Chinese Marxism, the first theoretician who raised an objection of the popularization of Marxism in China is Aisiqi, and his achievements in this field are unequaled. His Popular philosophy is the most typical book on the popularization of Marxism in China. In the 1930s, China faced a serious crisis, Chinese intelligentsia & mass desperately wanted an idea to unify the country. Many intellectuals have latched on to the Marxism, especially Aisiqi was absorbed in the important assignment that how can bring out leadership of Marxism, how can popularize abstract and profound principle of Marx philosophy. Aisiqi's Popular Philosophyis marked by the 'Localization' & the 'Popularization', after this book is published, had a big impact on Chinese Revolution. The purpose of this thesis is a meaning through the Popular Philosophy consideration and evaluation to get to the bottom of that the C.C.P offered a suggestion with 'Popularization of Chinese Marxism'.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.42
• /
• pp.19-19
• /
• 1989

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.324
• /
• pp.50-50
• /
• 2002

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.7-48
• /
• 2009

The recent crises of Marxism do not mean Marx’s crisis. Marx said that he was not a Marxist. The purposes of this essay explore (1) the modern identity of the political economy; (2) the possibilities of mutual understanding between neoclassical economics and Marxist economics; (3) problems of the political economy in media and communication industry. I have begged for analytical Marxists, because of their good fruits. They accepted the methods of modern social science and they constituted a tremendous advance in the application of the scientific methods to the study of society. In insisting on micro-foundations(methodological individualism), analytical Marxism distinguished itself from structuralism and functionalism. I appreciate that analytical Marxism has reduced a theory to practice. But the works didn’t listen to everyone(from Marxists to un-Marxists), and explain everything. Making theory with production/consumption, macro/micro, and structure/behavior is a road to the political economy in the long run. It also applies to media and communication industry. The realm of media/communication is broad, which in philosophy, humanities, politics, economics, sociology, and engineering. And media policy is more complicated by politicians who look at the same situation from different angles. By the aid of interdisciplinary research, the political economy of media/communication shall explain at full length.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.217-244
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews how $J{\ddot{u}}rgen$ Moltmann embraces and transforms the philosophy of Ernst Bloch. For what are the hopes of the two thinkers who presuppose opposing worldviews? This question will provide a good opportunity to look at how different religious types, based on different worldviews in modern philosophy of religion, can understand and communicate with one another. Ernst Bloch was a philosopher who originally interpreted Judeo-Christian thought through Marxism and Persian Dualism and helped to carry out the intrinsic criticism of the doctrine of Christian eschatology by developing atheism of Christianity into a philosophy of hope. Bloch and Moltmann deal with the concepts of future, humanity, nation, and hope in the eschatological horizon, but their worldviews are so different. For example, the connection between the Beginning and Ending, Disjunction or Continuation, the Core of Existence and Resurrection, Messianism and Marxism, Atheism and Theism, Persian Dualism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism. Therefore, a one-sided interpretation that ignores worldview differences in the hopes of these two thinkers should be avoided. Moltmann actively embraced the Messianism of the Jewish thinker, Bloch, by excluding Marxism, made the spectrum of broad-minded horizons diminished in the union of Messianism and Marxism. Moltmann replaced the utopian possibilities of matter in the Ontology of Not-Yet-Being, with the resurrection of Christ, who was crucified, and with the God of Creation and the God of Exodus. By overthrowing the position of atheism in Christianity, which was very important for Bloch, with the system of Trinitarian Monotheism, it resulted in the disconnection and conflict between the Old Testament and the New Testament, especially the ignorance of the tension between God the Lord and Jesus Christ.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.23
• /
• pp.349-392
• /
• 2008

Modern Neo-Confucianism was formed as a school by solving the modern problems in China through accepting western philosophies with Chinese basic philosophies since New Cultural Movement. Marxism, Liberalism, and Modern Neo-Confucianism are called three representatives of Chinese modern philosophies. Since the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, Modern Neo-Confucianists have tried to keep their philosophy and cultural conservatism in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Modern Neo-Confucianism which had been prohibited before 1978 was brought again to people's attention in the middle of 1980s by their active lectures and writings. Furthermore, the study on Modern Neo-Confucianism was supported by the Chinese government in 1987. China was trying to find the way to enhance Chinese tradition and to develop China to a modern society at the same time through the study on Modern Neo-Confucianism. The purpose of Modern Neo-Confucianism is to keep Chinese tradition which was broken off, to develop China to a modern society, to control the problems caused by capitalism socially, and ultimately to strengthen socialism in China in the political aspect. The study on Modern Neo-Confucianism in the 1980s focused on introducing, organizing, and understanding Modern Neo-Confucianism as its early stage. This study was led by Marxists with their methods and viewpoints. Even though the acceptance and understanding of Modern Neo-Confucianism was limited in a short period, the study on Modern Neo-Confucianism in the 1980s propagated Modern Neo-Confucianism. Modern Neo-Confucianism also played an important role to grow the argument about the critical succession of Chinese tradition and to reconsider the fact that modernization does not mean only westernization.

• 중국학논총
• /
• no.61
• /
• pp.341-363
• /
• 2019

作者在本文中主要探讨了李泽厚的"西体中用"论所具有的政治思想含义以及支撑它的"度"本体论的技术哲学意义. "西体中用"论在政治思想上主要反对教条主义的马克思列宁主义和儒学复兴论, 他认为现代化基本上是西化, 在这一点上, 更接近于全盘西化论. 但他又认为马克思主义與儒学在现代化的历程中可以发挥出积极的作用, 这一点则与全盘西化论不同. 论"西体"时, 李澤厚强调合乎大工业生产的生产力與科技. 论"中用"时, 他认为生活方式的现代化可以消除过去社会主义社会和儒家文化的不合理因素, 但還认为我們可以用马克思主义和儒学中的合理思想来克服现代社会的各种弊病. 另外, 2000年以后, 李澤厚還提出了"度"本体論. 論它時, 一方面他强调工商性劳动, 为人服务的技术, 数学, 逻辑, 理性等. 这是"西体"论的基础. 另一方面, 他把传统中庸概念重新解为工业技术使用恰当, 却批評现代大工业技术不是"恰到好處"的技术. 这是"中用论"的哲学基础. 总之, "西体中用"论揭示了中国现代化的正确方向, "度"本体论在技术哲学上也较好地支持了這一社会理论. 可惜的是, 他未能找到现代社会的种种弊病产生的"体"上的原因, 因此也未能探索新的"体".

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.23
• /
• pp.393-421
• /
• 2008

This thesis has an intention to reorganize the topic of Ontology that has not unnoticed, investigating the symbolic signs of Zhuxi. The symbols in Ontology visualize in an anthropomorphic form or a form of animals that we can usually find in the nature. The visible symbols have characteristics of the dynamic rather than the stillness. The symbols of human and a horse have developed as different interpretations depending on the relative importance. The movement of stream symbolize the Movement of Daoti that manifests thorough all things in the Dao and have a structure of 'Ti-Xiang-Yong'. The Substance of Metaphysics embodies an action thorough 'Metaphysics' or 'with Metaphysics'. Accordingly, 'a stream' symbolizes 'the Movement of Daoti' in that it manifests the form of Daoti makes body. A kite and a fish symbolize the form of a kite flies up into the sky and the shape of a fish plays in the pond. These not only represent an outlook on the world, but also symbolize the stage of the Movement of Daoti. 'Human', 'a stream', 'a kite' and 'a fish' include activeness, domination, dynamics, manifestation, visibility, naturalness.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.142
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2017

This research aims at examining two classist theories of the subject, elaborated by Negri-Hardt and $Ranci{\grave{e}}re$. Negri-Hardt proposed a new subject of the multitude, established by immaterial/biopolitical labor. This subject marks a new constitution of the proletariat which is the subject of Marxist politics. Like the proletariat, the multitude is established by economic objectivity. The democracy of the multitude becomes possible through the production of the 'common'. Economical elements always dominate the subject itself and subjective politics. The subject of the demos, established by Ranciere, is a party which claims its share in the dominating order of power. It is a subject subtracted from the logic of domination. The demos, therefore, is the subject which is constituted at the moment of the refusal of the established order and the place distributed. This refusal means a kind of subjectivity that transforms the dominating order. Then we take demos as the proper political subject subtracted from economical objectivity.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.14 no.12
• /
• pp.674-682
• /
• 2014

The personality in Marx's philosophy can be defined as an 'activity on the basis of social relations'. This concept suggests two significant implications to the difference of sexual identity between the sexes. First, according to Marx's philosophy the personality is partially influenced by the ideology. Freud's theory of Oedipus is founded on the patriarchal culture including the ideology. Freud's concept of personality ignores that aspect. That's why Freud's theory of Oedipus complex can be criticized. This is because of his ignorance of the affecting power of male chauvinism in patriarchal society. Second, more importantly and definitely, the difference of activity, especially labor, that is, male's social labor and female's private labor, has influenced the difference of the personality of both sexes.