• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.42
• /
• pp.197-232
• /
• 2014

Taoism is very political orientation from the start have. Internal alchemy has several factions, but southern school and northern school of taoism is typical of this. southern school begun from Zhang Bo-duan in north Song dynasty. Northern school is under Jin dynasty rule by Wang Chung-yang been established. Southern school did not create the platform, but northern school is developed mainly by the denomination from the first. Taoism is basically seek eternal life. Internal alchemy was created a unique discipline to reach the such stage with only Internal alchemy. Southern school's training methods were an elaborate series of logical structure with a counterpart, but northern school's methods is somewhat lacking logically. Southern school claim a training methods from the physical to mental through how to achieve it's ultimate goals, northern school took from mental to spiritual retreat methods that the way to achieve objectives. But northern school's theory of ascetic Practice is difficult to see that the contents are pure. Also, the labours of penance during his training process is the other way with Southern school. These differences are they closely associated with Confucianism and Buddhism, to understand the point of view. Southern school put a primary objective in the personal Practice, while northern school is fundamental to the relief of the people. This can see that has how long life times in southern school and northern school's main members. Because the members of southern school enjoyed great longevity, but northern school's main members was not enjoyed longevity. As a result, the southern school's flow is cut off and northern school became the center form a major organization in the history of china taoism. The southern school assimilated to the northern school. In a pure sense, host and guest's changed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.139-207
• /
• 2022

As various state restrictions on individual freedom were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised that excessive infringements on fundamental rights were indiscriminately permitted based on the public interest of preventing infectious diseases. Therefore, the question of how to set acceptable limits of liberty restrictions on individuals has emerged. However, since the phenomenon of infections spreading to the population is only predicted statistically, how to deal with the risk of the infected individual as a subject of legal analysis has become a problem. In the absence of a theoretical framework of legal analysis of risk, the risk of infected individuals during the pandemic was not analyzed strictly, and proportionality review of infection prevention measures was often only an abstract comparison of the importance of public interest and individual rights. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a theoretical review on how risk can be conceptualized legally in a public health crisis, and to develop a theoretical framework for proportionality review of the risk of liberty-limiting measures during a pandemic. Chapter 2 analyzes the legal philosophical concepts of risk, which are the basis for liberty restrictions during a public health crisis, and applies and extends them to the pandemic. Chapter 3 reviews previous studies related to liberty restriction measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and points out they have a limitation that specific criteria for the proportionality review of public health measures in the pandemic have not been presented. Accordingly, Chapter 3 specifies the methodological framework for proportionality review, referring to the theoretical discussion on risks in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 reviews the legitimacy of gathering restriction orders, applying the theoretical discussion in Chapter 2 and the criteria for proportionality review established in Chapter 3. In particular, Section 4 examines logic of proportionality review in judicial precedents over the ban on gathering restrictions implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing the precedents, the logic of proportionality review in each case is critically reviewed and reconstructed based on the theoretical framework presented in this research.