• 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.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.61-94
• /
• 2018

The aim of this research is to examine the main concepts of human beings established by the saints and wise men in the Perennial Philosophy, and to reveal that the human view of Perennial Philosophy is consistent with the view of human beings of Daesoon Thought. In addition, Kant, who synthesizes Western modern philosophy, also sets out the ultimate goal of his philosophy of identifying human beings, wherein Kant asks what human beings are. The view of human beings in the Daesoon Thought reveals one kind of answer that can be given to Kant's anthropological question. If we compare this idea with that of the Western world (a Kantian view of humanity) based on this Perennial Philosophy, the characteristics of Daesoon Thought can be revealed clearly. Kant set the ultimate goal of his philosophy to answer the question, "What is man?" With regards to this, he posits four questions: 1) What can I know? 2) What should I do? 3) What can I hope for? 4) What are human beings? And Kant says that the fourth question (related to anthropology) involves three other questions. However, he does not offer up his own definition of human existence anywhere in his works. He regarded humans as being rational, and he did not think that humans had any special cognitive ability to intuit into humanity itself. In the end, Kant leaves the human being as a sort of unknown entity. On the other hand, The concept of humanity in Daesoon Thought (Perennial Philosophy) can provide a straightforward answer to Kant's question. This possible is because human beings in Daesoon Thought are not seen as different from the Dao (道) or deities (神), which can be called the essence of ultimate reality. From the perspective of Daesoon Thought, humans have divine cognitive abilities. In Perennial Philosophy, this could be the best way to simultaneously lead the object of mind and cognition to the divine Ground. Humans have special cognitive or perceptual abilities. The ultimate identity of every person is God. The realization of the divine being by finding one's true nature as a human being (the self) and the essence of the enlightenment of those who have shown this special intellectual intuition through training are both outcomes found at the core of perennial philosophy. These can be expressed clearly and obviously through the essence of Daesoon Thought.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2007

Capital punishment is a system which is not finished simply as one of interim penalty but does away with one person's existence eternally. It is not only opposite to the existential humanism but also contrary to social welfare's goal like social integration. Therefore, this study tries to find out the issues related to capital punishment and further tries to draw out the rightness of capital punishment abolition by critically reviewing the capital punishment system on the basis of the value and philosophy of correctional welfare. In brief, capital punishment is possible only when we negate the inviolable fundamental right which is called life right, and deny the human life existence which surpasses space and time. As long as we can not deny the macroscopic viewpoint to search out the basis of human behavior in the social system which is called culture and society, capital punishment system is contrary to the philosophy of welfare that total society is responsible for guiding members of society to pursue self realization on the basis of value like social solidarity and human dignity. Also, it is against the objective of correctional welfare to head toward special prevention by positive correction and rehabilitation. Capital punishment system ought to be abolished properly.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.142
• /
• pp.145-164
• /
• 2017

In his Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty raises a question of why he has to ask what phenomenology is again. This study assumes that the question can be answered in a new understanding of the "nature" concept and finds its possible grounds in the nature concepts of Schelling and Merleau-Ponty. Schelling and Merleau-Ponty develop philosophical thinking from a critical point of view on the Cartesian and Kantian philosophies "Thing-in-itself" by Kant is, in particular, one of important questions that has to be answered in the philosophy of Schelling since Kant further solidifies a dualistic world by leaving thing-in-itself. Schelling solves the question with the concept of identity and Merleau-Ponty solves the question with body-subject. What we notice in this article is the understanding of Shelling and Merleau-Ponty about nature. Schelling believes there are the creative activities of unconscious intelligence in nature, but spirit or intelligence in his nature concept cannot induce an existential being. Here we see that Schelling is still beyond the traditional epistemological framework. To restore the original nature of nature, we must begin with an understanding of the totality of nature. Nature must also be explained through relationships with humans. Merleau-Ponty shows the entanglement of nature and spirit through the body-subject. In Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology, the body is the equivalent of nature. Understanding the forces of nature that Schelling and Merleau-Ponty are trying to show, and at the same time explaining the problem of how the mind or human beings emerge from nature, we will be able to discover the true nature of nature.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.167-191
• /
• 2014

Pour Kierkegaard la condition de l'homme naturel est tragique. $D^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre$ $s^{\prime}{\acute{e}}veiller$, ${\hat{e}}tre$ ignorant et $d{\acute{e}}nier$ sur son vrai ${\hat{e}}tre$, tous causent le $d{\acute{e}}sespoir$. En plus l'homme ne peut avoir une conviction sur son bonheur $jusqu^{\prime}{\grave{a}}$ la mort. Donc sa $th{\acute{e}}orie$ du bonheur ne se base pas sur le bonheur. Tous le monde vit dans une situation $o{\grave{u}}$ il y a une distance entre $l^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre$ $pr{\acute{e}}sent$ et son vrai ${\hat{e}}tre$. La vie ${\grave{a}}$ la perspective ${\acute{e}}thique$ s'apparaît comme se diriger vers son vrai ${\hat{e}}tre$ et ceci signifie $d^{\prime}{\acute{e}}tablir$ son ${\hat{e}}tre$ $int{\acute{e}}rieur$ en s'echappant la vie $esth{\acute{e}}tique$ qui est la vie sensitive et directe, et aussi faire s'identifier son ${\hat{e}}tre$ $ext{\acute{e}}rieur$ ${\grave{a}}$ son ${\hat{e}}tre$ $int{\acute{e}}rieur$. Le $p{\acute{e}}ch{\acute{e}}$ signifie la $s{\acute{e}}paration$ de son vrai ${\hat{e}}tre$, cela est la source de tout mal. L'obtention parfait de $l^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre-soi$ exisge ${\hat{e}}tre$ en $pr{\acute{e}}sence$ devant l'Asolu(Dieu) en tant qu'individu unique, et s'accorder avec l'Absolu. Mais du fiat $m{\hat{e}}me$ que ceci est impossible pour tous, tout le monde ne peut vivre qu'ayant un peu de $p{\acute{e}}ch{\acute{e}}$. Donc l'aspect de la vie ${\acute{e}}thique$ s'apparaît une vie dynamique qui $d{\acute{e}}passe$ $soi-m{\hat{e}}me$ sans cesse. En contradiction qu'avec l'analyse sur $l^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre$ $pr{\acute{e}}sent$ qui est si tragique, la vertu de cette vie ${\acute{e}}thique$ est si optimiste. Elle est l'amour. Cet amour est $tr{\acute{e}}s$ excellent qui $d{\acute{e}}passe$ toute la vertu ${\acute{e}}thique$. En $v{\acute{e}}rit{\acute{e}}$ pour Kierkegaard, bien que le salut $lui-m{\hat{e}}me$ sera donner par la foi, le principe de cet amour est l'unique vertu qui ammene l'homme vers la foi et vers le salut. C'est pourquoi son ${\acute{e}}thique$ est essentiellement s'apparaît 'une ${\acute{e}}thique$ de l'amour', et la recherche sur cet amour, son principe et son aspect reste comme uneque $t{\hat{a}}che$ de $l^{\prime}{\acute{e}}thique$.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.131
• /
• pp.303-330
• /
• 2014

Les avis des philosophes sur la mort sont $diff{\acute{e}}rentes$ selon leurs visions du monde. Certains essaient de surmonter la peur sur la mort, en $n{\acute{e}}gligeant$ la mort, et certains essaient de vivre le vraie vie par la $m{\acute{e}}ditation$ de la mort. Chez Kierkegaard la notion de la mort se $pr{\acute{e}}sente$ comme key-world $tr{\grave{e}}s$ important, et cela signifie qu'il parle par la mort une vie $s{\acute{e}}rieuse$ et vraie. Pour Kierkegaard la mort signifie d'abord la mort de la vie mondaine ou la $n{\acute{e}}gation$ de soi, cela est en faveur de sa conception de la nature humaine $o{\grave{u}}$ l'homme est fondamentalement un ${\hat{e}}tre$ $probl{\grave{e}}matique$ et ${\grave{a}}$ la fois ceuli qui a un rapport avec $l^{\prime}{\acute{e}}ternel$. Le $d{\acute{e}}sespoir$ de l'homme sur la vie $pr{\acute{e}}sente$ peut devenir 'la maladie qui entraîne la mort' c'est-${\grave{a}}$-dire la mort spirituelle, mais il peut donner aussi une chemin par laquelle l'homme se dirige en tant qu'individu vers l'Absolu. Chez lui ${\hat{e}}tre$ $s{\acute{e}}rieux$ signifie devenir existentiellement par la $n{\acute{e}}gation$ de soi. Et l'absence de la $sinc{\acute{e}}rit{\acute{e}}$ signifie l'absence de soi en tnat $qu^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre$ spirituel. Ainsi la $pens{\acute{e}}e$ $s{\acute{e}}rieuse$ sur la mort $n^{\prime}{\acute{e}}tant$ autre chose que de penser la mort comme la partie de $l^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre$ $pr{\acute{e}}sent$, elle devient la source ${\acute{e}}nergique$ qui permet de vivre pleinement le $pr{\acute{e}}sent$ comme $r{\acute{e}}alit{\acute{e}}$ $li{\acute{e}}$ ${\acute{a}}$ $l^{\prime}{\acute{e}}ternit{\acute{e}}$. Sa $pens{\acute{e}}e$ $s{\acute{e}}rieuse$ sur la mort permet d'avoir une conviction religieuse par laquelle l'homme peut penser la mort corporelle comme aventure $li{\acute{e}}e$ ${\grave{a}}$ $l^{\prime}{\acute{e}}ternit{\acute{e}}$ et par laquelle l'homme peut penser aussi la vie $apr{\grave{e}}s$ la mort comme vraie vie que les justes avaient $d{\acute{e}}sir{\acute{e}}s$. Cette $pens{\acute{e}}e$ de Kierkegaard sur la mort signifie le sens $m{\acute{e}}taphysique$ sur la mort au sens $o{\grave{u}}$ elle est une $r{\acute{e}}alit{\acute{e}}$ $v{\acute{e}}cue$, et aussi la $pens{\acute{e}}e$ qui ${\acute{e}}claircit$ la sagesse des philosophes antiques ${\grave{a}}$ la perspective $chr{\acute{e}}tienne$ qui dit philosopher, c'est apprendre ${\grave{a}}$ mourir.

• Journal of Christian Education in Korea
• /
• v.70
• /
• pp.11-35
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this article is to suggest nine types of educational ministry based on the practical theology in Christian Education. For the purpose this article emphasizes an individual dimension including church, society dimensions. An individual dimension is based on the spirit of post digital era within sociocultural area in different with personal-existential area of the philosophical and theological perspective and life cycle theology area of the developmental psychological perspective. Post digital era means the humanization of digital, digital friendly, and emotional digital cultural characteristics. Post digital generation means child, youth, young adults those who are accustomed with post digital cultural of the post digital era. The educational ministry for the post digital generations categorized into nine types according to correlation with individual, church, and society as a field of ministry and critical scientific method, critical confessional method, and critical correlational method as an interdisciplinary which are composed of Christian tradition and contemporary science. Representative key competencies of nine types in the educational ministry are media literacy, relational identity, communication, high touch, discipleship, making and using media, integrative vocation, collaboration abilities, and home, school, and social resilience in relation with multicultural generations.

• Trans-
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.65-86
• /
• 2018

In this paper, I chose one of various agenda for life in a philosophical film world view and explored the core of dialectical relation between free will and responsibility. Freedom and responsibility, Existential and inferiority, etc, The conflict of humanity on the crisis of faith have been A comparative study based on the discussions of East Asian religious philosophy and Western philosophy. Including compare the three commonalities and differences with Jean Paul Sartre's 'subjectivity ideology due to the existence of free will' on existentialism in contemporary Western philosophy and The theory of the 'moral autonomy originating in the good will' of the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant and Concept of 'consciousness' of the life essence of Keiji Nishitani Based on the analysis of the film. In addition, the problem of free will in the viewpoint of nature, along with the individual's point of view, is comprehensively supplemented by the idea of the "nothingness" of the philosopher Zhuang Zhou. A selection of the Polish film Dekalog: Eight and make a basic conclusion of the final by argumentation and analysis as a case of the dialectical relation between the free will and responsibility.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.120
• /
• pp.217-250
• /
• 2018

Subjekt oder $Selbstbewu{\ss}tsein$ ist ein grundlegendes Prinzip neuzeitlicher Philosophie. Das $Selbstbewu{\ss}tsein$ ist bei Kant $Selbstbewu{\ss}tsein$(analytische Einheit der Apperzeption als klare Selbstbeziehung) in Objekts $bewu{\ss}tsein$(synthetischer Einheit der Apperzeptuion). Dabei zeigt er ein Reflexionsmodell des $Selbstbewu{\ss}tseins$. Aber er $erkl{\ddot{a}}rt$ nicht systematisch ein $Verh{\ddot{a}}ltnis$ zwischen synthetischer Einheit und analytischer Einheit der Apperzeption, und auch $l{\ddot{o}}st$ er nicht theorienimmanente und formale Schwierigkeiten von Zirkelargument bzw. unendlicher Iteration in der Reflxionsstruktur des $Selbstbewu{\ss}tseins$. Aufgrund der Voraussetzungen seiner eigenen Fundamentalontologie kritisiert der $fr{\ddot{u}}he$ Heidegger, $da{\ss}$ Kants $traditionsabh{\ddot{a}}ngige$ $Subjektivit{\ddot{a}}tstheorie$ Symptome der Seins vergessenheit zeigt, transformiert Kants $Selbstbewu{\ss}tseinstheorie$, interpretiert Kants transformierte Theorie als $subjektivit{\ddot{a}}tstheoretische$ $Begr{\ddot{u}}ndung$ der traditionellen Ontologie von Vorhandenheit, und versteht sie als ersten Schritt und erstes phlosophisches Modell seiner Fundamentalontologie. Durch kritische Interpretation von Kants Lehre von Selbstaffektion und $Selbstbewu{\ss}tsein$ deutet er ein Modell des $Selbstbewu{\ss}tseins$ als des $ph{\ddot{a}}nomenologischen$ $Horizontsbewu{\ss}tseins$ an. In diesem Modell der vorreflexiven und unmittelbaren Selbstbeziehung entstehen Schwierigkeiten von Zirkelargument bzw. unendlicher Iteration nicht. Apel kritisiert Kants $selbstbewu{\ss}te$ Apperzeptionstheorie in dem Sinne, $da{\ss}$ sie solipsistisch sei, und in seiner Transzendentalpragmatik $vervollst{\ddot{a}}ndigt$ er Kants transzendentalphilosophische $G{\ddot{u}}ltigkeit$ in der Dimension von $Intersubjektivit{\ddot{a}}t$ diskurierender Menschen. Hierbei ersetzt die Kommunikationsgemeinschaft Kants Apperzeption oder $Bewu{\ss}tsein$ ${\ddot{u}}berhaupt$. In der transzendentalpragmatischen Sicht, die auf den sprachlichen Bezug des Denkens und Erkennens und die Kommunikationsgemeinschaft geht, beruht das $Selbstbewu{\ss}tsein$ oder die Reflexion des Subjekts wesentlich auf seinem sprachlich vermittelten sozialen Bezug. Also geht es nicht um Zirkelargument und unendliche Iteration in denkender Selbstbeziehung des Subjekts. Ebeling hebt Heideggers Daseinsanalytik auf das Niveau von Apels Transzendentalpragmatik an und entwickelt Fundamatalpragmatik ${\ddot{u}}ber$ $Widerstandsbewu{\ss}tsein$ gegen allgemeinen Tod. Dieser $Widerstandsbewu{\ss}tsein$ ist fundamentalpragmatische Transformation von Kants $Selbstbewu{\ss}tsein$. Der $Widerstandsbewu{\ss}tsein$ der Vernunft bleibt in der solipsistischen Dimension nicht und ist ein $Bewu{\ss}tsein$, das in der Widerstandsgemeinschaft durch Argumentation universalisiert werden kann. Hierbei geht es nicht um Zirkelargument und unendliche Iteration.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.239-279
• /
• 2004

이 글에서 나는 세 단계의 다른 종교이해 방식을 구분하여 세 가지 형태의 종교다원주의 정의하고 그 특징을 설명하고 있다. 그 첫째는 차별적 다원주의인데, 현존하는 혹은 앞으로 그 모습을 드러낼 종교들 사이의 차별성을 그대로 인정하는 형태이다. 둘째는 상보적 다원주의로써 현존하는 또는 앞으로 출현할 종교들은 각각의 종교적 실천과 그 믿음이 그 내용상 상호보충적인 성격을 지니고 있다고 보는 것이다. 셋째는 통합적 다원주의이다. 이 관점은 모든 종교를 인류와 인간의 세계이해의 전체론적 발전 과정의 필수적 부분들로 보는 것이다. 이 가운데 통합적 형태의 다원주의가 가장 중요하다. 왜냐하면 이 관점은 각각의 다른 종교들에게 그것 고유의 이질적 역사적 관점에 의한 하나의 토대를 제공하기 때문이다. 이 관점은 또한 각기 다른 종교들의 차이점들을 창조적 전체와 연관시켜보는 개방적이고 창조적인 통찰력을제공함으로써 그 종교들이 인간의 앎과 실천에 가장 중요한 비젼과 관련하여 각각이 궁극적으로 적절한 위상을 성취할 수 있도록 하며, 상호간에 배우고 더욱 발전할 수 있는 존재로 서로 이해되고 격려하도록 하는 기능을 수행한다. 이와 같은 종교적 통찰력의 면에서 나는 상호보충적인 다원주의 이론을 발전시킨 존 콥과 데이비드 그리핀의 업적에 심심한 고마움을 전한다. 그러나 동시에 각 종교의 독특성은 유지하면서도 상대주의는 피하기 위해서는 어떻게 이 상호보충적인 다원주의가 화이트헤드의 창조성 철학의 관점에 의해 부분의 개성을 유지하면서도 전체를 감싸 아우르는 통합적 다원주의로 반드시 한 걸음 더 나아가야 하는지를 강조 설명하고 있다. 이 글의 후반부에서는, 나는 또한 통합적 다원주의 관점의 종교적 진리와 믿음의 고양이 중요함을 이해하기 위하여 서로 연관된 네 가지 주제를 논한다: (1) 지역적으로 상대적인 인류의 필요에 동시에 응하고자 하는 동서의 세계종교의 목표에 부응하기 위해서는 화이트헤드적 사유의 틀과 역경의 철학이 보여주는 사유의 틀이 어떻게 통합되어야 하는가 (2) 어떻게 상대주의의 내적 논리에 의해 제기된 논쟁점들이 세계종교 안에서 동시에 극복되고 고려되어 종교가 계속 발전하는데 도움을 줄 수 있는지 (3) 어떻게 인류가 창조성의 또는 창조자로써의 신의실존-우주론적 견해의 풍부함으로 인도 되는 신적 개별화의 근본 은유적 존재로 역할을 해왔는지 (4) 유가와 도가의 통합적 조화의 역사적 모범에 기초해 볼 때, 기독교와 불교 이 두 세계종교의 통합적 조화가 가능한지, 그리고 왜 이 두 종교가 세계의 종교들이 서로 다른 종교적 믿음과 행위의 통합적 조화의 상태로 나아가는 미래의 변화를 이루는데 유효한 종교가 되는지.