• Title/Summary/Keyword: 사서대전

Search Result 21, Processing Time 0.016 seconds

Noju Oh Hui-sang's ConfucianismDoctrine and its Characteristics (노주(老洲) 오희상(吳熙常)의 경설(經說)과 그 특징(特徵))

  • Kim, Young-ho
    • The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
    • /
    • no.38
    • /
    • pp.129-162
    • /
    • 2013
  • Noju Oh Hui-sang was a Confucian who was active during the reign of King Sunjo in late Joseon Dynasty and he also was a master of the Sallim faction. Though he is known as an eclectic Neo-Confucian, he had profound knowledge in the study of Confucian classics as well through succeeding the family study handed down by his father Oh Jae-sun and his oldest brother Oh Yun-sang. This thesis hereby examines Noju's Confucianism doctrine and its characteristics. Noju's Confucianism doctrine is characterized significantly with the following aspects. First, its analyses are detailed overall and it annotates chapters and verses mostly related to Neo-Confucian theories on interpretation of the Confucian classics. Second, it conducts in-depth study not only on Chu Hsi's annotation but also on the small commentaries (小注) in Compendium of the Commentaries on Four Chinese Classics (四書集註大全). In terms of Chu Hsi's theory, however, Noju interprets Confucian classics while supplementing shortcomings on Chu Hsi's theory rather than opposing it. For opinions of all philosophers and scholars on small commentaries, it expresses rather critical theories than supporting ones. Third, it quotes many theories not only of Chinese Confucians but also of Korean ones. It mainly introduces theories of Namdang Han Won-jin, including those of Yi Yulgok. Among them, it particularly has frequent quotations from Han Won-jin's Kyoungyigimunrok (經義記聞錄). Fourth, Noju actively acknowledges senior Confucians' theories many times in quoting them but he also daringly points out their errors when a theory is thought not to be appropriate. He indicates errors one by one in theories not only of Uam and Yulgok but even of Mencius. Fifth, it especially discusses Book of Changes (周易) in depth. It tends to criticize Chengzi's I-Chuan (易傳) but accept Chu Hsi's Benyi (本義). It roughly explains Book of Changes in general but seldom directly accounts for trigrams of it other than Qian trigram and it has detailed explanation especially on Xicizhuan (繫辭傳).