• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.69-106
• /
• 2017

Shim Dae-Yoon's ChunChuSaJeonSokJeon presented a new direction of the study about ChunChu in Chosun dynasty. It broke the rigid frame for the study about ChunChu in Chosun dynasty and was an experimental challenge trying to interpret ChunChu based on the view of Post-Neo-Confucian. This study is to identify the nature of the Shim Dae-Yoon's interpretation about ChunChu based on the view of Post-Neo-Confucian and to analyze his analytical methodology. Shim Dae-Yoon's interpretation about ChunChu, first of all, newly identified its nature beyond existing Confucian approach. Second, it attempted to approach to the true nature of ChunChu criticizing existing Confucian interpretation as well as differentiating its interpretation methodology. In this approach, Shim Dae-Yoon highlighted the realistic value of ChunChu focusing on the objectivity as a record instead of the absoluteness as a classical text. His study about ChunChu can be evaluated as a significant role in the intellectual history setting up a Post-Neo-Confucian foundation for the study about ChunChu though it failed to structure a complete theoretical frame.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.63
• /
• pp.141-168
• /
• 2016

This paper studies Zhu Xi's critical comprehension about the theories of gewu zhizhi of senior Confucian scholars, focusing on the Daxue Zhangju, Daxue huowen, and Daxue huowen yulei of Zhuzi yulei. Zhu Xi described in depth the theory of gewu zhizhi of Sima Guang, disciples of the Cheng Yi(Lu Dalin, Xie Liangzuo, Yin Ch'un, Yang Shi), scholars of Hu-Xing province(Hu An-guo, Hu hong), Li Dong in the Daxue huowen and Daxue huowen yulei, by his understanding through a criticism of the theory of gewu zhizh, thereby formulating a theory of gewu zhizhi on the basis of Cheng Yi's theory. Through this criticism of senior Confucian scholars, Zhu Xi explained that the theory of gewu zhizhi was departed from a positive affirmation of things. Zhu Xi claimed that the crux of gewu zhizhi was a thorough understanding like a sudden release achieved by accumulating Li of things. This plan of Zhu Xi with respect to "Supplementary Chapter on the Gewu Zhizhi" showed that the theory of gewu zhizhi which was set up by himself corresponded to the theory of Cheng Yi's, and it was based on the Confucian tradition firmly.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.67
• /
• pp.345-378
• /
• 2017

In the scriptures of "$Ch{\bar{u}}n-qi{\bar{u}}$(春秋)", the expression method of '$Ch{\bar{u}}n-w{\acute{a}}ng-zh{\bar{e}}ng-yu{\grave{e}}$(春王正月 : It's spring. It's the first month regulated by the king.)' was used as Jì-yuè-fǎ(紀月法 : the rules to determine the first month(正月)), the month of winter solstice was regarded as the first month of a year, and three years since then were named as $Ch{\bar{u}}n$(春 : spring). With regard to this "$Ch{\bar{u}}n-qi{\bar{u}}$"Wáng-lì("春秋"王曆 : the calendar regulated by the king of $Zh{\bar{o}}u$(周) dynasty in "$Ch{\bar{u}}n-qi{\bar{u}}$"), depending on whether Confucius(孔子) changed and recorded the names of the months and the season or not, there were three different arguments; the theory that 'Confucius changed the names of both the months and the season'(孔子改月 改時說), the view that 'Confucius changed the name of the season, not the names of the months'(孔子不改月 改時說), and then the theory that 'Confucius changed neither the names of the months nor the name of the season'(孔子不改月 不改時) since Song(宋) dynasty. The first view was taken by $Hh{\acute{u}}-{\bar{a}}n-gu{\acute{o}}$(胡安國) and $C{\grave{a}}i-ch{\acute{e}}n$(蔡沈), and the second theory was mentioned by Chéng-yí(程?) and Zhū-zǐ(朱子). The advocates of the third view had become remarkable since Ming(明) dynasty, and one of representatives was Wàng-yáng-míng(王陽明). All of them based their arguments on ancient scriptures and Confucian legal books, and there were cases of taking the same records as the support for different opinions. Confucius' so-called 'Chūn-qiū-bǐ-fǎ(春秋筆法 : the method to describe historical facts by making clear discrimination between right and wrong)' and '$Sh{\grave{u}}-{\acute{e}}r-b{\grave{u}}-zu{\grave{o}}$(述而不作 : the attitude to succeed virtuous men's achievements and only explain and describe them not creating and adding new contents)' could come from thoughts of $Z{\bar{u}}n-w{\acute{a}}ng$(尊王 : to respect the king with the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and sincerity). Therefore, even though Confucius is assumed to have been the writer of "$Ch{\bar{u}}n-qi{\bar{u}}$(春秋)", whether he actually changed and recorded the names of the months and the season in the calendar used in "$Ch{\bar{u}}n-qi{\bar{u}}$" is doubtful. These theories on Confucius's intervention in the calendar of "$Ch{\bar{u}}n-qi{\bar{u}}$" hadn't been discussed as conflicting in reality until Tang(唐) dynasty.