• Strategy21
• /
• s.32
• /
• pp.123-159
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this research paper is to re-valuate the factors that affected the Royal Navy's rearmament and preparation for war by conducting analysis on the discussion held in the Britain on the strategic priorities and Navy's coping measures adopted during the interwar period. After the end of the WWI, each of the military arms of the Britain faced significant difficulty in securing budget and increasing their military power all throughout the interwar period, and the Navy was not an exception. The WWII that got started on September 1939 was the turning point in which this difficulty led to full-fledged crisis. Immensely many criticisms followed after the war and problems were identified when it comes to the Royal Navy's performance during the war. This type of effort to identify problem led to the attempt to analyze whether Royal Navy's preparation for war and rearmament policy during interwar period were adequate, and to identify the root causes of failure. Existing studies sought to find the root cause of failed rearmament from external factors such as the deterioration of the Britain itself or pressure from the Treasury Department to cut the budget for national defense, or sought to detect problems from the development of wrong strategies by the Navy. However, Royal Navy's failed preparation for the war during interwar period is not the result of one or two separate factors. Instead, it resulted due to the diverse factors and situations that the Britain was facing at the time, and due to intricate and complex interaction of these factors. Meanwhile, this research paper focused on the context characterized by 'strategic selection and setting up of priorities' among the various factors to conduct analysis on the Navy's rearmament by linking it with the discussion held at the time on setting up strategic priorities, and sought to demonstrate that the Navy Department's inadequate counter-measures developed during this process waned Royal Navy's position. After the end of WWI, each of the military arms continued to compete for the limited resources and budget all throughout the interwar period, and this type of competition amidst the situation in which the economic situation of Britain was still unstable, made prioritization when it comes to the allocation of resources and setting up of the priorities when it comes to the military power build-up, inevitable. Amidst this situation, the RAF was able to secure resources first and foremost, encouraged by the conviction of some politicians who were affected by the 'theory of aerial threat' and who believed that curtailing potential attack with the Air Force would be means to secure national security at comparatively lower cost. In response, Navy successfully defended the need for the existence of Navy despite the advancement of the aerial power, by emphasizing that the Britain's livelihood depends on trade and on the maintenance of maritime traffic. Despite this counter-measuring logic, however, Navy's role was still limited to the defense of overseas territory and to the fleet run-off instead of sea traffic route production when it comes to the specific power build-up plan, and did not understand the situation in which financial and economic factors gained greater importance when it comes to the setting up of strategic priorities. As a result, Navy's plan to build its powers was met with continual resistance of the Treasury Department, and lost the opportunity to re-gain the status of 'senior service' that it had enjoyed in the past during the competition for strategic prioritization. Given that the strategic and economic situation that Korea faces today is not very different from that of the Britain during the interwar period, our Navy too should leverage the lessons learned from the Royal Navy to make the effort to secure viable position when it comes to the setting of priorities in case of national defense strategy by presenting the basis on why maritime coping should be prioritized among the numerous other threats, and by developing the measures for securing the powers needed effectively amidst the limited resources.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.446-453
• /
• 2021

This paper deals with two methods regarding fact and value. One is the method of H. Putnam, which is to break the boundary between fact and value and to make a world where the two have an inherent connection. The other is the method of J. Habermas, which regards fact and value as the product of an intersubjective agreement based on argumentation. Putnam, through his position of internal realism, moves from realism to pragmatism, especially by combining the rationalist tradition of Kant and Dewey's pragmatic views. Habermas also stands in the tradition of rationalism and universalism in Kant, at the same time emphasizing the practicability of truth in Hegel's tradition of historical reason. The significance of the strategy of Putnam and Habermas is that they have attempted to revive the realm of value against the strict dichotomy of facts and values and the subsequent devaluation of rationality in the realm of value. The starting point of this attempt is that the practical foundation of rationality is laid on life and practice. This could provide the room for escaping from rationality, which prioritizes only truths that reveal facts, that is, instrument-reduced rationality, the room for the revival of practical rationality through reflection on what is the purpose of life, and, in turn, the room for resisting to pass the realm of values and norms to the logic of habitual routines or customs. However, despite such common goal, there are clear limitations to Putnam's approach due to the differences in the strategies taken on facts and values. Putnam's method can demolish the whole universal framework that is the foundation where pragmatic pluralism will be fostered, eliminating the difference between the specificity of values and the universality of norms and shaking up the status of universal ethics. Therefore, Habermas' ethical theory is proposed as an alternative to establish a basis for universal ethics by relying on communication rationality and to secure the coercion of norms and blossom cultural pluralism as a diverse lifestyle based on this coercion.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.148
• /
• pp.213-238
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to study logical status and meaning of '$l{\grave{e}}i$[類]' in integrated concept system of 'míng[名]'. The subordinate relationships and integrated systems between genus and species are made up 'míng[名]' in pre-Chin's logical arguments. And '$l{\grave{e}}i$[類]' is a concept that designate what kind of category in all names of sorts and kinds in early China. The logical argumentations of early Chinese philosophers reflect subordinate relationship and integrated system of 'míng[名]'. And then early Chinese philosophers use the 'míng[名]' in other to denote a general concept that totally indicate meanings of genus and species like as Confucius' '$zh{\grave{e}}ng$ míng[正名]'. However early Chinese philosophers make philosophical issues of correspondence between míng[名] and shí[實], not subordinate relationships between genus and species. And then they use the 'míng[名]' in other to denotes not a general concept but a kind of category. Therefore the concept of 'míng[名]' used as a meaning of general concept and sorted out integrated concept system of 'míng[名]' as two categories of míng[名] and shí[實] at the same time in logical argumentations of early Chinese philosophers. The '$l{\grave{e}}i$[類]' of pre-Chin difference from genus of Aristotle spontaneously and conceptually. It is not a concept that in other to compose subordinate relationships and integrated systems. It is not a kind of genus. It divide a kind of denotation that means some kind of aggregations into existence and nonexistence. And it divide a kind of connotation that means some kind of attributes into same and difference. When early Chinese philosophers make distinction and demonstration the correspondence between míng[名] and shí[實], so to speak distinction mean to divide and classify into correspondence or non-correspondence, and demonstration mean to argue about the division and classification. Therefore the concept of '$l{\grave{e}}i$[類]' is a criteria that is to divide and classify the correspondence between míng[名] and shí[實] in integrated concept system of 'míng[名]'.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.9-38
• /
• 2018

Joseon Neo-Confucianism had important disputes throughout its hundred years of history. Starting in mid-16th century, Four-Seven Dispute focused on 'Qing (情, emotion)' while Horak Dispute that emerged in early 18th century put emphasis on whether people and things have the same 'Xing (性, nature).' These two disputes lasted until late Joseon. In that process, their issues were clearly recognized and consequently, characteristics of Joseon Neo-Confucianism were well demonstrated. With Western power surging in since mid-18th century, Joseon Neo-Confucianism should develop logic to cope with the Western power. One of responding logics was Zhulilun (主理論, theory of reason) in Neo-Confucianism. Diverse discussions particularly on 'Xin (心, mind)' were expansively made. From the notion of Xin Tong Xing Qing (心統性情) that Xin converges with Xing and Qing, an argument that Xin should be seen as 'Li (理, reason)' and another that Xin is basically 'Qi (氣, force of nature)' were up against each other. The academia heated up with issues raised such as whether Xin and Mingde (明德, bright virtue) are the same notion and whether Mingde should be seen as 'Li' or 'Qi', etc. Defining morality dispute in the late Joseon along with Four-Seven Dispute and Horak Dispute as 'three major disputes in Joseon Neo-Confucianism,' this paper focuses on clarifying their status, actuality and significance. Morality dispute was not only a theoretical dispute. It has significance in the aspect of 'topicality.' It directly and indirectly affected movements against Western and Japanese power, loyal troop's activities and independence movement as well. Compared to Four-Seven Dispute and Horak Dispute, morality dispute is more complex and expansive. In addition, it requires systematic organization of data. Intercomparison of three major disputes is one of key topics to determine characteristics of Joseon Neo-Confucianism.

• MISULJARYO - National Museum of Korea Art Journal
• /
• v.97
• /
• pp.14-54
• /
• 2020

The overall study of Samsaebulhoedo (painting of the Assembly of Buddhas of Three Ages) at Yongjusa Temple has focused on dating it, analyzing the painting style, identifying its painter, and scrutinizing the related documents. However, its greater coherence could be achieved through additional support from empirical evidence and logical consistency. Recent studies on Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple that postulate that the painting could have been produced by a monk-painter in the late nineteenth century and that an original version produced in 1790 could have been retouched by a painter in the 1920s using a Western painting style lack such empirical proof and logic. Although King Jeongjo's son was not yet installed as crown prince, the Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple contained a conventional written prayer wishing for a long life for the king, queen, and crown prince: "May his majesty the King live long / May her majesty the Queen live long / May his highness the Crown Prince live long" (主上殿下壽萬歲, 王妃殿下壽萬歲, 世子邸下壽萬歲). Later, this phrase was erased using cinnabar and revised to include unusual content in an exceptional order: "May his majesty the King live long / May his highness the King's Affectionate Mother (Jagung) live long / May her majesty the Queen live long / May his highness the Crown Prince live long" (主上殿下壽萬歲, 慈宮邸下壽萬歲, 王妃殿下壽萬歲, 世子邸下壽萬歲). A comprehensive comparison of the formats and contents in written prayers found on late Joseon Buddhist paintings and a careful analysis of royal liturgy during the reign of King Jeongjo reveal Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple to be an original version produced at the time of the founding of Yongjusa Temple in 1790. According to a comparative analysis of formats, iconography, styles, aesthetic sensibilities, and techniques found in Buddhist paintings and paintings by Joseon court painters from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple bears features characteristic of paintings produced around 1790, which corresponds to the result of analysis on the written prayer. Buddhist paintings created up to the early eighteenth century show deities with their sizes determined by their religious status and a two-dimensional conceptual composition based on the traditional perspective of depicting close objects in the lower section and distant objects above. This Samsaebulhoedo, however, systematically places the Buddhist deities within a threedimensional space constructed by applying a linear perspective. Through the extensive employment of chiaroscuro as found in Western painting, it expresses white highlights and shadows, evoking a feeling that the magnificent world of the Buddhas of the Three Ages actually unfolds in front of viewers. Since the inner order of a linear perspective and the outer illusion of chiaroscuro shading are intimately related to each other, it is difficult to believe that the white highlights were a later addition. Moreover, the creative convergence of highly-developed Western painting style and techniques that is on display in this Samsaebulhoedo could only have been achieved by late-Joseon court painters working during the reign of King Jeongjo, including Kim Hongdo, Yi Myeong-gi, and Kim Deuksin. Deungun, the head monk of Yongjusa Temple, wrote Yongjusa sajeok (History of Yongjusa Temple) by compiling the historical records on the temple that had been transmitted since its founding. In Yongjusa sajeok, Deungun recorded that Kim Hongdo painted Samsaebulhoedo as if it were a historical fact. The Joseon royal court's official records, Ilseongnok (Daily Records of the Royal Court and Important Officials) and Suwonbu jiryeong deungnok (Suwon Construction Records), indicate that Kim Hongdo, Yi Myeong-gi, and Kim Deuksin all served as a supervisor (gamdong) for the production of Buddhist paintings. Since within Joseon's hierarchical administrative system it was considered improper to allow court painters of government position to create Buddhist paintings which had previously been produced by monk-painters, they were appointed as gamdong in name only to avoid a political liability. In reality, court painters were ordered to create Buddhist paintings. During their reigns, King Yeongjo and King Jeongjo summoned the literati painters Jo Yeongseok and Kang Sehwang to serve as gamdong for the production of royal portraits and requested that they paint these portraits as well. Thus, the boundary between the concept of supervision and that of painting occasionally blurred. Supervision did not completely preclude painting, and a gamdong could also serve as a painter. In this light, the historical records in Yongjusa sajeok are not inconsistent with those in Ilseongnok, Suwonbu jiryeong deungnok, and a prayer written by Hwang Deok-sun, which was found inside the canopy in Daeungjeon Hall at Yongjusa Temple. These records provided the same content in different forms as required for their purposes and according to the context. This approach to the Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple will lead to a more coherent explanation of dating the painting, analyzing its style, identifying its painter, and interpreting the relevant documents based on empirical grounds and logical consistency.