호락논쟁 이전 율곡학파의 미발론과 인물성동이론

Abstract

This study is an examination of how discussions on the inmulseongdongi theory (人物性同異論, dispute on the nature of man and animal) and innate human nature (未發心體) were brought up and carried out by members of the Yulgok school of thought before the Ho-rak debate (湖洛論爭). Yulgok's thinking was focused on the theory of self cultivation in Confucianism which has the purpose of perfecting humans to a higher state. Therefore, he was less interested in whether the natures of men and animals were the same. Rather, he focused on pointing out the basic goodness of all humans through the “theory of Li-through and Ch'i-within“ (理通氣局說) and explaining that all humans have the ability to do good through the “theory of shimshigi“ (心是氣說). During the time of U-am(尤庵), the relationship between self cultivation and the mibal theory (未發論) was emphasized. However, U-am, like Yulgok, was not interested in the similarities or differences in the natures of animals and humans. Rather, he stressed the fact that all people had the ability to be enlightened and that enlightenment can be brought about through the use of one's inner abilities. However, Soo-am(遂菴) focused on the idea that reason and goodness were not the same principle. He made strict distinctions between humans and animals and good and evil people. Through this, he tried to bring up the topic of the appropriateness of the development of humans. This was when the topics of whether the natures of humans and animals are the same and whether innate human nature is good or evil was first seriously brought up. Due to these problems, Nong-am(農巖) changed his outlook. While he had supported the idea that the personalities of children are different, he began to assert that 1) based on the fact that all things are instilled with the laws of nature, humans' personalities cannot be said to be different when looked at from the perspective of nature, and 2) good and evil in human nature are the same since the goodness of nature is the same in all people. These views were developed into the idea of original human nature from the “Rak“ theory. The theories of “Ho“ and “Rak“ are the same in that they both support Yulgok's idea of self cultivation. However, the views of Hohak and the views of Yulgok and U-am are different in that Hohak suggests that humans must development themselves because they are fundamentally different from each other and Yulgok and U-am emphasize the innate goodness all humans receive at birth.