• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.85-113
• /
• 2014

정제두는 조선시대를 대표하는 양명학자라는 평가를 받기는 하지만 구체적 학문경향에 대해서는 다양한 평가가 공존하는데 이와 같은 현상은 말년에 갈수록 양명학보다는 경세론, 예설, 경학으로 그 관심의 무게를 확대한 데에 주요한 원인이 있을 것이다. 한편 경학 연구가 반드시 양명학의 기본정신에 위배된다고는 할 수 없기 때문에 문제의 핵심은 경전 해석에 적용된 관점에 대한 평가가 중요하게 된다. 그의 중용설을 분석해 보았을 때 정제두는 인간을 포함한 만물의 보편적 존재를 규명한 책으로서 "중용"을 이해하기 보다는 인간수양서로서 "중용"을 이해하고 있었다. 이는 그가 경학 연구에서도 도덕실천을 중시한 양명학적 입장에 서 있었음을 잘 보여준다.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.25
• /
• pp.411-437
• /
• 2009

Generally transition of Thought from Wang Yangming(王陽明) to Liu Zongzhou(劉宗周) is construed from emphasis of subjectivity to emphasis of intention(意; Yi). This Transition from emphasis of subjectivity to emphasis of intention is definitely expressed between Wang Yangming's Four-Sentence Teaching(四句敎) and Liu Zongzhou's explanation of Wang Yangming's Four-Sentence Teaching. Wang Yangming's Four-Sentence Teaching evoked much controversy among scholars of Yangming school. Consequently Four-Sentence Teaching's controversy caused Yangming school's division. Also this was a representative controversy on the transition period from The Ming Dynasty to The Ching Dynasty. Liu Zongzhou's critique and exposition of Four-Sentence Teaching was result from this controversy. The difference between Wang Yangming's Xinxue(心學) and Liu Zongzhou' Xinxue(心學) is due to different interpretation of intention. As is generally known Wang Yangming interprets intention is in heart stiring, but Liu Zongzhou interprets intention is being before heart stiring, immanence in heart. Liu Zongzhou suggests new exposition of Four-Sentence Teaching on intention being before heart stiring, immanence in heart. Liu Zongzhou's critique and exposition is not only criticizing Yangming's Four-Sentence Teaching, but also solves troubles of the times. As a result he promotes theory of Xinxue(心學) being peculiar his own.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.62
• /
• pp.177-207
• /
• 2016

This essay is dealing with Yang-Ming Studies' fundamental ideas, which are the goal of learning, the cultivation theory, and the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue. The first, what is the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: It is generally accepted idea that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. But there are different suggestions about the ideas above. The reason is like this: Zhu-Zi-Studies was eager to be a sage through its cultivation theory. Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue criticized the cultivation theory in Zhu-Zi-Studies. Therefore, some people don't agree with the idea that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. In this essay, I try to demonstrate that the goal of learning in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue is to be a sage. The second, What is the major cultivation theory in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: The core cultivation theory is the Zhi-Ling-Zhi(Fulfillment Innate Knowledge of Goodness). For this, there is no question, but it is difficult how to learn and practice Zhi-Ling-Zhi in the daily life. I try to explain the right meaning and practice over Zhi-Ling-Zhi. The third, what is the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue: It is general method in examine Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue that is comparing with Zhu-Zi-Studies. So there is a natural tendency focusing on the differences and similarity between Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue and Zhu-Zi-Studies. But If I say, what is the ultimate goal in Yang-Ming-Xin-Xue? That is the realization of Ren, Which is the harmony with all things in heaven and earth.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.105
• /
• pp.321-350
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to identify the difference between Sangsan-Simhak(象山心學) and Yangming-Simhak(陽明心學). This means that the whole history of Sung Confucianism needs to be understood based on changing philosophical paradigm according to the times, not general perception which regards the whole history of Sung Confucianism as Li-Hak (理學) and Sim-Hak(心學). This kind of perception is caused by the general perception which divides Sung Confucianism into Sim-Hak and Li-Hak. We regard the former as Chung-Chu study and the latter as Liu-Yang study. Because of this, Sangsan study is recognized as the former stage study of Yangming study and can not be placed in independent position in whole history of Sung Confucianism. And Sang is regarded that it takes diametrical opposition with Chuhsi study. So it is said that there is no point of sameness among them. But Sangsan study was generated from 'Song-Hak(宋學)' based on paradigm of Li-Hak and Yangming study was generated from 'Ming-Hak(明學)' based on paradigm of Sim-Hak. The difference between 'Song-Hak' and 'Ming-Hak' is generated from proposition called 'Sim is Li (心卽理)' that most research has overlooked. To identify these things, this paper examine the philosophical difference between 'Song-Hak' and 'Ming-Hak' and analyze the proposition 'Sim is Li(心卽理)' that regards Sangsan study and Yangming study as same philosophical system. And this paper identify the philosophical difference between Sangsan study and Yangming study by examining the method that the concept of 'Sim is Li(心卽理)' is applied in moral cultivation. This paper shows that the difference of interpretation about the concept of Li(理), between 'Song-Hak' based on Li paradigm and 'Ming-Hak' based on Ki-Hak(氣學) paradigm, causes different meaning in 'Sim is Li(心卽理)'. Through these, this paper demonstrate the difference between the paradigm of 'Song-Hak' that Chuhsi study and Sangsan study have and the paradigm of 'Ming-Hak' that Yangming study has and the fact which Sangsan study is systematic philosophy of Sung Confucianism in itself not former stage of Yangming study.

• 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 Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.58
• /
• pp.307-336
• /
• 2018

This paper traces the historical genealogy of the subjectivity and the silsim (實心, true mind) that appear in Jeong In-Bo's "gukhak" (國學, the national learning) thought and illuminates its characteristics. In the modern East Asian history of thought, the beginning of the emergence of subjectivity and the silsim as the main philosophical topic comes from the Neo-Confucianism of Song Dynasty in China. Cheng Yi is the first thinker to emphasize subjectivity and consciousness. Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming inherit the Neo-Confucian thought based on Cheng Yi's principle of subjectivity, but only show difference in methodology. In the Chosun Dynasty, Jeong Je-Doo and his School were one example of the Neo-Confucian spirit of subjectivity and the silsim. Although Jeong In-Bo (鄭寅普) belongs to Jeong Je-Doo's school of Ganghwa in the school curriculum, he has only used it methodologically since he believed that Yangming's learning is more effective in the awareness and practice of the silsim. Especially noteworthy is that the principle of subjectivity led Jeong In-Bo to follow the frame of Zhu Xi's moral theory. Jeong's claim that selfish desire (jasasim 自私心) should be controlled by a conscious mind (silsim) being aware of the right and 'ought to do' corresponds to Zhu Xi's view that the moral mind (dosim 道心) should be selected in the conflict situation between sensual desire (insim 人心) and moral consciousness so that the insim should be supervised by the dosim. Such ethics is a position to emphasize the inner motive and the sense of duty of conduct, and there is no fundamental difference in Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming. At least on this point, it is necessary to look at modern and contemporary Korean studies from the perspective of continuity, not discontinuity from Confucian tradition.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.48
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 2012

Writing is a process and work of expressing one's own feelings and thoughts that are not contained in rigid forms; however, the literary trend and environment during the Late Joseon was not so tolerant. A revivalist approach to writing was dominant during this period, which was summarized in the expression that "Prose must be written in the style of Qin and Han; and Poetry in that of High Tang. "Hence, it was practically a taboo to express one's raw emotions and disregard the custom and regulations of writing. Nevertheless, literati, who got tired of the dogmatic rule of Neo-Confucianism at the time that refused to see the changing world and the pseudo-archaic writing that merely imitated the outside and was empty inside, attempted new styles of writing to escape from the model or example and what was familiar. Lee Yong-hyu, who was in the middle of such transformations, learned the trends of Late Ming and Early Qing through the newly imported Chinese books and created his own style that reflected his personality. His writings refused the Neo-Confucian system of thoughts, which was a dominant ideology of the time, paid attention to the human nature and emphasized the restoration of the self. His writing could be described as being anti-pseudo-archaic and criticized the pretentious trend of the time. He argued that in order to restore the true self, one must recover the innocent mind that was bestowed on human by heaven/nature (cheon-li, 天理), and for this purpose, one must straighten out one's mind (sim, 心). His argument is similar to that of "Yangming School of Mind," which could be represented by the phrase, "Mind is the Principle (心卽理)." Yangming School claimed that moral principle existed within one's mind; and this was in stark contrast with the Neo-Confucian idea that "principle (li)"was external and transcendent, and was spoken by the great Confucian masters and written down in Confucian Classics. By denying the externality of the principle and underscoring its immanence, the idea that centralized Confucian Classics and canons was dismantled. Lee Yong-hyu's writing styles that denied the model and emphasized the restoration of the self was influenced by such thoughts. However, one must neither hastily judge that he is an advocate of Yangming School of Mind, nor determine the anti-pseudo-archaic writers' ideological basis as the philosophy of Yangming School. Once it is rigidly defined, be it Zhu Xi's philosophy or Wang Yangming's philosophy, it becomes another model that one must abide by, and again the self disappears. Thus, Lee Yong-hyu defied any kind of model that claimed authenticity or precedence and wished that people would live independently as oneself, and left such claims and wishes in writing. That is the reason, after more than two hundred years later, we still read his writings.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.73
• /
• pp.327-360
• /
• 2018

Ryu Seongryong, a Confucian scholar and politician, are two sides of the same coin that cannot be separated from each other. The scholarship of Confucian intellectuals is oriented toward the practice of the managing state and salvation of the world(經國濟世), and the precise study of historical precedent and political scene affects the success or failure of politicians. Ryu was able to become a real savior of Joseon Dynasty in crisis, because he synthesized dialectically both without distinction between theory and field. However, previous studies on Ryu did not pay attention to these points. In this article, I would like to start from the point that Ryu was interested in the Learning of Wang Yangming without being satisfied with the Neo-Confucianism. And I want to emphasize that he had a pragmatic view that was different from the orthodox scholars and that he was able to demonstrate his ability to cope with crisis even when Joseon was hit by the Japanese invasion of 1592. In short, this article seeks to re-examine Ryu's life in terms of pragmatism and realism which pursued a balance between learning and practice.

• The Journal of Internal Korean Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.95-99
• /
• 1992

• Journal of the Korean Society for Nondestructive Testing
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.35-39
• /
• 1985