한국사상사에서의 墨家 비판 - 闢異端論의 전개 양상을 중심으로

Abstract

As above, as theoretical basis of critiques against School of Mohism, the researcher summarized the positions of the elder Confucian scholars including Meng Zi. In the body of text, taking it as promises, the researcher examined the critiques against Mo Tzu and School of Mohism as well focusing on the aspects and development of the theory of rejecting heterodoxy which had been introduced and strongly argued from the end of Goryeo kingdom to the late Joseon period. The summary of the body of this text is as follows:In the old literatures prior to Goryeo Kingdom, the researcher couldn’t find any cases that either the School of Mohism or Mo Tzu including the Hundred Schools of Thought had been rejected explicitly. Having reached the end of Goryeo and the beginning of Joseon period, Meng Zi’s viewpoints on the theory of rejecting heterodoxy had begun to emerge and come into play with the progress of accepting Neo-Confucianism, and, these critiques against Yang Zhu and Mo Tzu being given, the scholar-literati circle had started rejecting Buddhism and Lao Tzu. Basically the contents of the critiques against the School of Mohism in the early period of Joseon were in succession to Meng Zi’s theory of rejecting heterodoxy and the views and thoughts of the elder Confucian scholars including Han Yu rather than any specific critiques against Mo Tzu’ ideology itself. Until entering the middle of Joseon period, the critiques against the School of Mohism had been used as a tool to promote Confucianism in an affirmative manner, while arguing strongly against the viewpoint of Han Yu in the first place. Particularly, not only the original text of the Mo Tzu’s writings were directly quoted, although it was partial, but also the contents of the critiques against the School of Mohism had been developed and stretched to the extent of their entire ideological system. Having approached to the late period of Joseon, the critiques against the School of Mohism had begun to be linked to those critiques against the study of state examination or of sentence patterns including Catholic Church, furthermore the critics raised their harsh tones against the irregularities of the society at large like the issue of corruptions of the government officials of those days instead, although they still had firmly stood on the ground of the theory of rejecting heterodoxy. Those scholars that belonged to the School of Practical Learning, in particular, said in justification of the School of Mohism arguing that the major ideologies of Mo Zi had usefulness in the real world, also they even evaluated that Meng Zi’ critiques against the School of Mohism were immoderate. To sum up, characteristics of scholars in the Joseon period to understand and critique the School of Mohism are that ideologies of Mo Tzu were mostly used as a tool for the sake of critiques against heresies in other sectors of society based mainly on Meng Zi’s theory of rejecting heterodoxy, rather than opposing views against the ideologies or philosophies of the School of Mohism itself. Meanwhile, however, on the plus side, the critics praised Mo Tzu’s individual efforts in order to put his ideology of peace into practice apart from the ideological system of the School of Mohism. Also, having reached the late period of Joseon, the researcher was able to have discovered the fact that the writings of Mo Tzu had been used as historical materials in order to ascertain historical truths of Confucian Scriptures, rather not having it regarded as an ideology text.