• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.201-226
• /
• 2022

Character education begins with a clear definition of character. There are claims that humanity is reducible to human nature or personality, but when approached from an educational perspective, human nature soon boils down to the question of its ultimate goodness or wickedness. There is a significant difference between the educational systems that emerge from the standpoint that human nature is evil versus the standpoint that human nature is good. With regards to educational outcomes, this can be observed both in terms of human nature and personality. Modern education today sees education as leading the immature to a mature state from the standpoint that human nature is evil. But if human nature is evil, how could we implement an education that would render it good? If character education becomes a system of etiquette education or one of instilling manners whereby simple wrong cases are righted, it would be nothing but a follow-up to the wrong educational cases that had been carried out previously. In that sense, character education is correction; not education. Education should be done in a way that realizes and understands the perfect self rather than unfolding as a process of constantly correcting and reinforcing immature human beings. In that sense, this paper posits that enabling students to understand their own emotions would serve as a correct form of character education. This would be a system of focusing on emotions that reveal the goodness of human nature. Personality can be educated, but education at this time should be a way to bring out a student's already good and even perfected nature. This is more realistic than replacing a 'faulty' character with a good character which supposedly did not exist previously. If personality education morphs into 'emotional self-understanding,' contemplations on 'why not to do' unsavory acts rather than mere negative commands 'don't do that,' and listening to what one's emotions intuit prior to and after given actions, then that would arise to the true standard of a good education.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.31
• /
• pp.7-32
• /
• 2011

Cheng Yi(程?, 1033~1107) understood that nature is full of "changes(易)". And he noted that human being as part of nature also exists only in a series of changes, i.e. birth, growth, extinction and death. All things including human being arise from the same principle, or "Heavenly Principle." Hence human being can fundamentally be one with all other beings, or nature. It is called "Unity of all things(萬物一體)" and "Unity of heaven and human(天人合一)." This philosophical perspective cannot be regarded as being unique to Cheng only; neo-Confucian predecessors called "the five masters of the Northern Song(北宋五子)" anticipated Cheng's vision already. Nevertheless, Cheng elaborated on the shared vision, revealing his philosophical uniqueness. Cheng maintains that only human being receives the principle in the unstained form, and thereby is capable of being one with nature. The one who realizes her/his potential to be one with nature is a sage(聖人); for Cheng, the order and pattern found in nature is nothing other than moral principle that human beings have to live up to and vice versa. Cheng's idea on the principle which human being receives from Heaven no doubt relates to Mencian notion of the innate goodness of human nature(性善); the innate goodness of human nature is no other than Heavenly Principle, and to become a sage depends on whether one can realize her/his potential - human nature, i.e. Heavenly Principle in her/himself. For Cheng, human nature tantamount to Heavenly Principle has no evil quality; all the evil in the world comes from imperfect "physical endowment(氣質)," or "capacity(才)" which is various from person to person, making various personalities. Accordingly, the task of moral cultivation in Cheng's theory can translate into the matter of rectification of one's physical endowment.