• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.271-296
• /
• 2018

In this article, I intend to reveal critically both the intrinsic crux and main problems of the politics of hostile exclusion based on the effect of labeling which was designed precisely as an impure political technique and has been operated for too long in Korean society by the conservative ruling class that centered on various negative ideological labels like 'pro-North Korean leftist forces.' Firstly, what is called the 'conservative ruling class' in Korean society is in itself an antinationalistic and antidemocratic pro-Japanese dictatorship group. Secondly, the conservative ruling class as a pro-Japanese dictatorship group has utilized politically the labeling effect which regards antigovernment Korean members as pro-North Korean or rebellious persons. This group's hostile politics, based on the ideological labelling effect, deprives antigovernment persons and groups of the qualification of Korean citizenship, in order to hold and retain their supreme power in Korean society. Thirdly, the conservative ruling class has attempted to stigmatize the citizens who participate in a movement for democracy as a pro-North Korean leftist force, but such a politically impure manner is typically completely unjustified groundless labeling. Fourthly, the attempt to define the conservative ruling class as a pro-Japanese dictatorship force is normatively justified and resonably appraised insofar as such a definition has been proved to be worthy of confidence. Finally, the trial to consider Roh's regime and pro-Roh (pro-Moon) groups as a kind of Yeongnam hegemonism by several critical intellectuals and current politicians from Honam region is not only merely a groundless and unconvincing labelling, but also the failed outcome of the attempt to systemize logically their emotional antipathy and repulsion toward Roh and pro-Roh (pro-Moon) groups.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.405-444
• /
• 2004

The Cultural Heritage Committee is an advisory committee established under the Cultural Heritage Administration with the aim of carrying out examination and deliberation on preservation, management and use of cultural heritage. The Cultural Heritage Administration is the highest administrative organization in terms of Korean cultural heritage. It was founded to produce and execute policies on cultural heritage, an important task that requires a high level of specialized knowledge, skills and academic expertise. It involves in-depth investigation and consultation of experts in the field of cultural heritage. An organization consisting of distinguished experts, the Cultural Heritage Committee plays an important role in policymaking on cultural heritage of Korea. The Korean government established the Bureau of Cultural Heritage in October 1961, and enacted provisions (as a presidential decree) on the organization on March 27, 1962, according to the Cultural Heritage Act established on January 10 of the same year. The Cultural Heritage Committee was opened as a deliberation committee according to the law, on which currently 90 members serve in 8 subcommittees. The term of office of a committees member is two years. The deliberation of the committee, which covers the entire range of cultural heritage, including their designation and cancellation, is normally concluded by the deliberation and decision of each subcommittee. This study aims to analyze of the survey of the Cultural Heritage Committee as the highest organ for the deliberation of policies on the matters of cultural heritage. The subject of the analysis in this study is a questionnaire survey that was conducted between Oct. 20 and Nov. 29, 2003, of 116 former and current members of the committee.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.33
• /
• pp.359-384
• /
• 2008

Making Daxue("大學") which was originally the 43rd chapter of Liji("禮記") independent, Zhuzi(朱子) had reedited it into Daxuezhangju("大學章句") and in this process, he had added 134 letters thereto. Those 134 letters that added were concerned with gewuzhizhi(格物致知) and Zhuzi(朱子)'s such interpretation had made a great deal of contribution to the later interpretations of Daxue("大學") conducted by those scholars who followed him in a later age. Zhuzi(朱子) had interpreted gewu(格物) as to make a exhaustive study on principles of things or noumena that exist between heaven and earth. If gewu(格物) taking it for granted, denotes thorough investigation of the principles of things, it is considered that qiongli(窮理) is a more appropriate expression. Meanwhile, however, Zhuzi(朱子) argues that the reason for dubbing it gewu(格物), not calling it qiongli(窮理), is to see a thing as it is in itself. This is to emphasize that investigation of things and extension of knowledge gewuzhizhi(格物致知) is shixue(實學), not a xuxue(虛學). Zhizhi(致知) is a step through which my knowledge is being culminating in the most comprehensive and profound fashion. Specifically, Zhizhi(致知) is the phase to seek zhenzhi(眞知) having put together all knowledge gained through gewu(格物). In this true understanding, there is no room for one's own free will to intervene; zhenzhi(眞知) becomes the same as universal knowledge. The things accumulated in quantity through gewuzhizhi(格物致知) are to be changed by means of huoranguantong(豁然貫通). If we put gewuzhizhi(格物致知) as the quests of basic and general subjects, meanwhile, huoranguantong(豁然貫通) corresponds to more profound and sophisticated learning. Huoranguantong(豁然貫通) is a phase in which my principle and the universal principle become unified, and so, this is the phase where the standards in my mind will attain universality. That is to say, this means that the standards in my mind and the universal standards grow into one. Then, what is the ultimate purpose of gewuzhizhi(格物致知)? The ultimate purpose of gewuzhizhi(格物致知) is to reach zhishan(至善). If gewuzhizhi(格物致知) seeks zhishan(至善), those universal standards in my mind that attained through huoranguantong(豁然貫通) shall also be the criteria of that zhishan(至善). Viewing it from this perspective, it can be said that Zhuzi(朱子)'s gewuzhizhi(格物致知) contains both epistemological and logical aspect.

• Journal of Science of Art and Design
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.221-249
• /
• 2007

Today, photography is facing to the crisis of identity and dilemma of ontology from the digital imaging process in the new technology form. It is very important points to say rethinking of the traditional photographic medium, that has changed the way we view the world and ourselves is perhaps an understatement and that photography has transformed our essential understanding of reality. Now, no longer are photographic images regarded as the true automatic recording, innocent evidence and the mirror to the reality. Rather, photography constructs the world for our entertainment, helping to create the comforting illusions by which we live. The recognition that photographs are not constructions and reflections of reality, is the basis for the actual presence within the contemporary photographic world. It is shock. This thesis's aim is to look for the problems of photographic identity and ontological crisis that is controlling and regulating digital photographic imagery, allowing the reproduction of the electronic simulations era. Photography loses its special aesthetic status and becomes no more true information and, exclusively evidence by traditional film and paper that appeared both as a technological accuracy and as a medium-specific aesthetic. The result, photography is facing two crises, one is the photographic ontology(the introduction of computerized digital images) and the other is photographic epistemology(having to do broader changes in ethics, knowledge and culture). Taken together, these crises apparently threaten us with the death of photography, with the 'end' of photography and the culture it sustains. The thesis's meaning is to look into the dilemma of photography's ontology and epistemology, especially, automatical index and digital codes from its origin, meaning, and identity as the technological medium. Thus, in particular, thesis focuses on the analog imagery presence, from the nature in the material world, and the digital imagery presence from the cultural situations in our society. And also thesis's aim is to examine the main issues of the history of photography has been concentrated on the ontological arguments since the discovery of photography in 1839. Photography has never been only one static technology form. Rather, its nearly two centuries of technological development have been marked by numerous, competing of technological innovation and self revolution from the dual aspects. This thesis examines recent account of photography by the analysis of the medium's concept, meaning, identity between film base image and digital base image from the aspects of photographic ontology and epistemology. Thus, the structure of thesis is fairy straightforward to examine what appear to be two opposing view of photographic conditions and ontological situations. Thesis' view contrasts that figure out the value of photography according to its fundamental characteristic as a medium. Also, it seeks a possible solution to the dilemma of photographic ontology through the medium's origin from the early years of the nineteenth century to the raising questions about the different meaning(analog/digital) of photography, now. Finally, this thesis emphasizes and concludes that the photographic ontological crisis reflects to the paradoxical dynamic structure, that unsolved the origins of the medium, itself. Moreover, even photography is not single identity of the photographic ontology, and also can not be understood as having a static identity or singular status from the dynamic field of technologies, practices, and images.