• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.23
• /
• pp.155-180
• /
• 2008

Suam(遂庵) Kwon Sang-Ha(權尙夏) was a very important character in the late Chosoen Dynasty. He was a representative of the academic circles(school of Uam) and political circles(Nolon; 老論) after Uam(尤庵) Song Si-Yeol(宋時烈, 1607-1689). He represented learning and thought and undertaking of his academic circles and political circles, and handed down to his pupils. He thought his mission was "lighting the laws of heaven and aligning the human mind," "stopping the heretical study and repulsing uncivilization", to reform good virtues of humanity and justice. Kwon Sang-Ha was a successor of Song Si-Yeol, He succeeded learning and thought of his teacher and practiced "Upright"(直) and the Thought of ChunChu(春秋). He emphasized "Upright" as a fundamental principle, like his teacher. He thought ChuHsi(朱熹, 1130-1200) was the master who had inherited the spirit of Confucianism and Chosoen was the only country to successfully inherit this spirit of Confucianism. He declared any study counter to the study of ChuHsi as a rebellious pursuit. Therefore he rejected all other studies. He tried to "stop the heretical 'ism' and repulse uncivilization" and present this ideology as 'the Right way of Human Society(世道)'. He made efforts to reorganize books of ChuHsi to make perfect Book of righteousness with Song Si-Yeol. And he established Hwayang shrine, MandongMyo(萬東廟), Deabodan(大報壇) etc, in memory of fidelity and large rightness. Kwon Sang-Ha did these undertaking to establish 'Public morals and the Right way of Human Society(世道)' with self-confidence. In Dispute on the nature of man and animal(人物性同異論), he gives his approval to Han Won-Jin's opinion. Han Won-Jin's opinion was "the nature of man and animal is Different"(人物性異論). Whenever serious political accidents occurred, he took the lead to protect his teacher, Song Si-Yeol. The reason he did this was not because of his personal feelings for his teacher, but because of promoting 'Public morals(世道)' and 'Confucianism.' Kwon Sang-Ha regarded Mind control Law of "Upright" and the thought of ChunChu as his moralities, and was concerned about real politics and opposed social irregularities. Kwon Sang-Ha succeeded Song Si-Yeol's thought of "Upright" and volition of making an inroad on the Chung(淸), and gave to his political circles(Nolon; 老論) as a law of mind and mission.

• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.483-509
• /
• 2008

For the last decades, criticism on Frankenstein has tried to make a link between Victor's Creature and Rousseaurean "man in a state of nature." Like the Rousseaurean savage in a state of animal, the monster has only basic instincts least needed for his survival, i.e. self-preservation, but turns into a civilized man after learning language. Most critics argue that, despite the monster's acquisition of language, his failure in entry into a cultural and linguistic community is the outcome of a lack of sympathy for him by others, which displays the stark existence of epistemological barriers between them. That is to say, the monster imagines his being the same as others in the pre-linguistic stage but, in the linguistic stage, he realizes that he is different from others. Interpreting the Rousseaurean idea of language, which appears in his writings, as much more focused on emotion than many critics think, I read the dispute between Victor and his Creature as a variation of parent-offspring conflict. Shelley criticizes Rousseau's parental negligence in putting his children into a foundling hospital and leaving them dying there. The monster's revenge on uncaring Victor parallels the likely retaliation Rousseau's displaced children would perform against Rousseau, which Shelley imaginatively reproduces in her novel. The conflict between the monster and Victor is due to a disrupted attachment between parent and child in terms of Darwinian developmental psychology. Affective asynchrony between parent and child, which refers to a state of lack of mutual favorable feelings, accounts for numerous dysfunctional families. This paper shifts a focus from a semiotics-oriented perspective on the monster's social isolation to a Darwinian perspective, drawing attention to emotional problems transpiring in familial interactions. In doing so, it finds that language is a means of communicating one's internal emotions to others along with other means such as facial expressions and body movements. It also demonstrates that how to promote emotional well-being in either familial or social relationships entirely depends on the way in which one employs language that can entail either pleasure or anger on hearers' part.