• Digital Contents
• /
• no.10 s.89
• /
• pp.6-7
• /
• 2000

최근들어 각종 언론들을 통해 닷컴 위기론이 강하게 제기되고 있다. 그와 맞추어 모든 언론의 보도양상도 위기론을 말하지 않으면 안된다는 의무감까지 생기는 모양이다. 이와 관련해 최근의 언론매체의 보도양상을 살펴보면 크게 두가지로 나누어 볼수 있다. 첫째, 전문가의 입을 빌리는 것이 하나의 방법이고 다음으로 업계에서 떠도는 소문을 짜 맞추어 하나의 시나리오를 만드는 것이다. 물론 양자 모두 픽션을 그리고 있지는 않다. 그러나 가장 위험한 것은 일부 여론의 태도인데 미 보도된 기사에 덧붙여 닷컴위기라는 동어반복을 한다는 것이다. 즉 동어반복 이외에는 아무런 실체가 없다는 것 때문에 경제에 매우 부정적인 영향만 끼친다는 것이다.

• Industry Promotion Research
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.115-124
• /
• 2022

The most difficult things, when we study the future-telling science of human destiny, are in case of what one's individual's fate is bad which is shown by Saju-Palza(四柱八字), In that case, we have faced the problems on how we live ; to follow or to deny our fate under the brief of improving our lives by trying to make hard efforts, regardless of the bad Saju-Palza(四柱八字). However, we can hardly find the clear answer to those questions. 『Liao Fan 4 lessons(了凡四訓)』 shows that one's destiny can be improved by accumulating good deeds despite of the bad Saju-Palza(四柱八字). Someone says that future can be created, not be foreseen. As well, Dr. Steven Coby says that the best definite way to forecast future is in creating the future. Anyhow, the strong desire and curiosity to know one's individual's future is having been lasted until now since the Genesis. we guess these desires may be one of our basic instinct. If then, the function and role of the future-telling science will be to increase the accuracy of future prediction, whether our fate has been fixed or been able to be changeable. Therefore, this study summarizes the definition of confusing terms, focusing on Gyeokguk(格局) and Sangshin(相神), the core of Myeongrihak(命理學), which is considered to be one of the most popular future-telling science. Concering Gyeok(格), in this paper, Nae-Gyeok(內格) has been mainly considered and Oi-Gyeok(外格) or Special-Gyeok(別格) have not been addressed. Specifically, it summarized the views of the classical Myeongri(命理) books and modern scholars on Gyeokguk(格局) and Yongshin(用神). In particular, it also summarized the comparison of various concepts of Gyeokguk(格局), the advantages and disadvantages of each Nae-Gyeok(內格)'s characteristic, the determination order of Nae-Gyeok(內格) and the good case and bad case of it's Gyeok(格). In addition, it was necessary to summarize the concept of Sangshin(相神), which was talked about in 『Japyeongjinjeon』 and to briefly summarize Heeshin(喜神) with a broader concept than Sangshin(相神). The different usage of Sangshin(相神) was also analyzed, between the priority interpretation of Cheongan(天干) in Day-Column(日柱) and the interpretation based on Jijee(地支) in Month-Column(月柱). Finally, this paper was completed, leaving it later as a research task, the confusion that comes from the scholars' acceptance of the comprehensive diversity on the same term.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.116
• /
• pp.251-281
• /
• 2017

The Parmenidean tradition of logos which previous researches fail to fully appreciate has three dimensions of reality-knowledge-discourse. Parmenides is not just an ontologist, as the traditional view emphasizes, but also an epistemologist, as the revisionist view begins to emphasize, and, at the same time, a meta-discourser, as those two established views fail to embrace. In order to reach the third view which fully grasps such a dynamic and integrated feature of Parmenides, we should closely pay attention to the organic interconnectedness of three discourse parts of truth-doxa-proem, especially the significance of proem and meta-discourse. In the Eleatic tradition of discourse, the figure who clearly appreciated and further developed such an authentic feature of Parmenides' discourse is not, as one might easily expect, one of the second-generation Eleatics, but Gorgias who has commonly been positioned at the opposite side of Eleatism. This paper investigates how he actually both innovated and succeeded the Parmenidean tradition of logos; especially, it characterizes his discourse as an antilogy(antilogia) from within the tradition: as a 'devil' advocate' who complemented and completed Parmenidean persuasion by positing the Parmenidean tradition of logos as an arena of a huge intellectual discipline and cultivation, offering himself as a sparring partner to it, and bringing up an antilogy. In the process of this antilogy he performed in his rhetorical speeches such as the Encomium of Helen and the Defense of Palamedes he experimented and examined a possibility of persuasion operating independently from truth, which, however, is not merely sacrificing truth in favor of persuasiveness and probability (to eikos) as Plato criticized mainly focussing on his 'philosophical' writing On not-being. Rather, it was an 'opposition for opposition's sake' and serious play which purported to provide balance and flexibility to contemporary intellectual society which had too much inclined towards truth and knowledge and become stiff and to put weight on the opposite side of mainstream. It is wholly our eranos (i.e. our share of contribution) to summon and examine such sophistic tradition for the sake of the task of our times, not for the sake of Plato's task, that we should build up a healthy culture of discourse where we can share serious play.