• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.73-108
• /
• 2012

Researches about the Horaknonjaeng(湖洛論爭) have succeeded by focusing on the Osangnonbyeon(五常論辨)?Mibalnonbyeon(未發論辨). In a way of these researches, philosophic thought of Gwon Sangha(權尙夏) is dealt in a comparison and in that process his philosophic thought seems to be known. However, these researches are treating several thoughts so it is difficult to find accurately what point describes the position of his thought in the korean confucian thought as origin of Hohak(湖學). In this paper, therefore, I examine Gwon Sangha's theory of mind-nature by focusing on the understanding the concept of mind-nature in Hansujaejib(寒水齋集) and find its position in history of thought as an origin of forming Hohak. Before 1709, Horaknonjaeng don't break out, Gwan Sangha had been formed that Inmulseongsangi(人物性相異) of Osangpyeonjeon(五常偏全) based on the understanding of the fact that ensuring of Bonyeonjiseong(本然之性 性善) in Gijiljiseong(氣質之性) and under this influence scholars of Hohak formed thoughts and insisted Osangpyeonjeon(五常偏全 人物性相異) during Horaknonjaeng. In the point of Simseongilmul(心性一物) focusing on nature, he didn't admit the Jujaeseong(主宰性) of mind. This is the efforts of finishing the controversy of Simseongigi(心性二岐) and the efforts of finding the relation between Simseon(心善). Such thoughts are set before the Horaknonjaeng and basing on these influences, scholars of Hohak formed their thoughts and insisted the Gibulyongsa(氣不用事 未發氣質有善惡).

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.131-164
• /
• 2012

This paper is to make a generalization of Keyongyegimunrok(經義記聞錄) by Namdang Han Wonjin(1682~1751) whose historical positions of philosophy were contained, and to examine its established periods and the summaries of Ligi-Simseong Doseol(理氣心性圖說, illustrated Account of principle, Vital force, and Heart-mind) given in Appendix of Chap. 6. Total seventeen explanatory diagrams cover over the theory of principle and material force, theory of Heart-mind, theory of cultivation. These explanatory diagrams were produced systematically and easily to understand the pursuits of study, so-called Ho-hak(湖學), since Namdang becoming a member of the Yellow River(黃江) school. The philosophical argumentations of Namdang was usually succeeded by the orthodox stream of Ki-ho(畿湖) School transmitted from Ii, Song Si-yeol, Gwon Sang-ha. Ligi-wollyu-do(理氣源流圖), Ligi-dongjeong-do(理氣動靜圖), irwon-bunsu-do(一原分殊圖, 4 diagrams) are diagrams equivalent to Ki-ho School's ontology. As Ki-ho School's theory of Heart-mind, there are Seongjeong-hoenggan-do(性情橫看圖), Seongjeong-sugan-do(性情竪看圖), Seongjeong-chonghwoi-do(性情總會圖), Oseonghoju-do (五性互主圖), Oseongchubon-do(五性推本圖), Simseongmyohap-do (心性妙合圖), Simseongiji-do(心性二岐圖), Jungyongcheonmyeong-do(中庸天命圖), Insim dosim-do(人心道心圖), focusing on Simtongseongjeong-do(心統性情圖), and last diagram is Wihakjibang-do(爲學之方圖), which adapted from the diagram established by Ii and Song Si-yeol. The significance of Keyongyegimunrok(經義記聞錄) is comprehensive of the pursuits of the Yellow River school's studies, and provides evidence of a leading figure in Ho-hak.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.43-74
• /
• 2013

This paper aims to analyse Han Wonjin's criticism centered on Kim Changhyup's theory of Jigak(知覺). In the early 18th century, Kim Changhyup whose position considered as the leader of Rakhak(洛學) circle was the central figure in the debate on the controversial subject of Jigak. Han Wonjin as an opinion leader of Hohak(湖學)'s legacy was required to argue with his counterpart in order to establish his circle's standpoint. The main issue they discussed was the relationship between Ji(智) and Jigak. Kim contends that Ji and Jigak belong to different categories, and that the substance-function(體用) relation cannot be applied to them. According to him, the relation between Ji and Jigak is that of Do(道) and Gi(器). Similarly, the relation between Sim(心) and Sung(性) is that of subject and object. He also maintains that Jigak is not the phenomenalized mode of Ji, but the innate capability that employs Sung as the source of morality and turns it into feelings. In contrast, Han argues that Ji, as a ontological foundation of Jigak, is what enables Jigak to be a moral activity. In criticizing Kim Changhyup, Han maintains that if one denies the relation between Ji and Jigak, then one would have to characterize Jigak as a blind function with no moral sense. If one admits Jigak can have moral contents on its own without the connection with Ji, then one would have to allow two moral foundation, which leads one's idea into heretical beliefs. Han holds that Jigak can a moral function only when it is grounded upon Ji. In conclusion, Han emphasizes Ji as the base of Jigak that enables Jigak to realize morality while Kim emphasizes the role of Jigak as the principal agent of moral activity.