• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.42
• /
• pp.295-330
• /
• 2014

This article is to investigate into the philosophical background and the applicability of the humanities programmes effectively to practice them, not to educate the religious doctrines, based on the traditional-cultural resources in the education center affiliated with the religious institution. These humanities programmes can be understood on the lifelong education associated with a person. In the light of common curriculum practising in the existing education center, contents of those programmes are reviewed with classifying the humanities programmes into 3 parts, that is, eastern classical language education, eastern classical education, and eastern traditional prognosticating arts branching off from the eastern philosophy. Eastern classical language education indicates the classical Chinese characters and literatures in the context of our historical tradition. Eastern classical education implies the education which can acquire classical literatures in a modern way, as a accumulation of knowledges having been in charge of a person's lifelong education, and as a entity responsible for making a person to bring to maturity of his character by comprehending the life of human being and the world in pre-modern, Finally, the eastern philosophy is chosen for the reason that have the very interesting contents which can report facts that recover the integral relationship between nature and human being lacking in contemporaries, and instead of rejecting to interpret human being excessively in terms of materialism, is a significant one endowed with the mission which should develop his potentials through the his lifelong. Especially, eastern traditional prognosticating arts are selected that people has considered with them so kindly, and are the knowledges forming the cores of national culture. It may be a very important that attempts to develop the humanities programmes practising in the education center affiliated with the religious institution are not only the demands of the times in our days, but also a new teaching way replacing with old fashioned teachings.

• Journal of Korean Classical Literature and Education
• /
• no.34
• /
• pp.115-147
• /
• 2017

This paper compared and reviewed the poetic theories and Chinese poems of the Korean author Kim Chang Heup and his Japanese counterpart, Kan Chazan. Kim Chang Heup and Kan Chazan shared largely the same opinions on poetry, and both rejected archaism. First, they did not just copy High Tang poetry. Instead, they focused on the (sometimes trivial) scenery right in front of them, and described the calm feelings evoked by what they had seen. They also adopted a sincere tone, instead of an exaggerated one, because both believed that poetry should be realistic. However the differences between the two poets are also noteworthy. Kim Chang Heup claimed that feelings and scenery meet each other within a literary work through Natural Law, and the linguistic expressions that mediate the two are philosophical in nature. However, Kan Chazan did not use Natural Law as a medium between feelings and scenery. Instead the Japanese writer said the ideal poetical composition comes from a close observation and detailed description of scenery. In sum, while Kim Chang Heup continued to express reason through scenery, Kan Chazan did not go further than depicting the scenery itself. In addition, Kim Chang Heup believed poetry was not only a representation of Natural Law, but also a high-level linguistic activity that conveys a poetic concern about national politics. As a sadaebu (scholar-gentry), he held literature in high esteem because he thought that literature could achieve important outcomes. On the other hand, Kan Chazan regarded it as a form of entertainment, thereby insisting literature had its own territory that is separate from that of philosophy or politics. In other words, whereas Kim Chang Heup considered literature as something close to a form of learning, Kan Chazan viewed it as art. One might wonder whether the poetics of Kim Chang Heup and Kan Chazan reflect their individual accomplishments, or if the characteristics of Chinese poetry that Korean and Japanese poets had long sought after had finally surfaced in these two writers. This paper argued that the two authors' poetics represent characteristics of Chinese poetry in Korea and Japan, or general characteristics of Korean and Japanese literatures in a wider sense. Their request to depict actual scenery in a unique way, free from the ideal model of literature, must have facilitated an outward materialization of Korean and Japanese literary characteristics that had developed over a long time.