• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2013

Two schools represent the Li theory of nature in the 19th century. They are the Li's superintendence school of Lee Hangno, Ki Jungchin and Lee Jinsang and the Li and Ki's mutual superintendence school of Chun Woo. They share a theoretical concern about the blockage of Ki's free rein. However, their concepts of superintendence are very different. Thus, various disputes arise among them and consequently different solutions are proposed. The Li's superintendence school applies Li's power even in the actual world, which has completely dominated Ki by conferring dynamic power on Li. However, Chun Woo, a representative theorist of Li and Ki's mutual superintendence, accepts only Ki's dynamic power. By denying Li's dynamic power, he argues that there is no other thing than Ki which takes the lead in reality. His solution to block Ki's free rein is to make Ki(mind) a disciple of Li(standard or nature) and to make Ki follow Li's lead.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.32
• /
• pp.7-41
• /
• 2011

Theories of Li-Ki mutual dynamism and piety represent philosophical thoughts of Toege School. The theory of Li-Ki mutual dynamism reflects conflicts of Heavenly Law and Human Desire or Principled Mind and Selfish Mind on the private level, but conflicts of Virtuous Gentleman and Materialistic Person on the social level. The theory of piety is for establishments of Heavenly Law's Superintendence and Virtuous Gentleman's Leading Power in life. Toege's followers keep this theoretical stream Their perception of reality has two distinct features: one is that they focus on the fundamental distinguished from the incidental: the other is that they don't tolerate any compromise between righteousness and interest, They think they can make a beautiful world without any compromise between righteousness and material interest if trying hard on the fundamental. Their propensities are very different from those of Yulgok school who sought an appropriate compromise between principle and reality or between the Eastern and the Western party distinguishing an argument of the fundamental from an argument of the incidental.