율곡 사상에 대한 다산의 이해와 비판적 계승

Abstract

Tasan Chong Yag-yong is valued as the culmination of practical science. Origin of his Silhak thought (Practical Learning), however, has been treated as a controversial question in academic world: Which side does Tasan belong, to Toegye or Yulgok?This article aims to illuminate the fact that conflicts and confrontations between School of Toegye and Yulgok during the Chosun Dynasty had actually arisen from misconception. In order to verify the thesis, I first reviewed Tasan’s evaluation of both Toegye and Yulgok regarding their debate on Four-Seven, then further compared the three scholars’ views on the concept of ‘governing people through self-cultivation (修己治人). Tasan’s early support of Yulgok’s theory of qi-issuance cannot be fully justified, since his argument was built around his own definition of li and qi; he did not mean to truly succeed Yulgok. What we should figure out from Tasan’s favorable evaluation on Yulgok is, nevertheless, that he did not regard the two predecessor’s theory as mutually exclusive. Rather, by analyzing the fundamental reason why the two theories were grasped differently, Tasan ventured to remove the misunderstanding between the two schools. The oppositional and often hostile evaluation on the rival schools was in fact due to the political factional strife; the aspect of mutual advancement and succession, which had been neglected so far, should be explored in detail. In the similar context, Tasan’s theory of political and social management (經世) was compared only to that of Yulgok’s. It would be unfair to regard Toegye as indifferent to the question of managing social and political problems; Toegye had his own way of approaching political issues, based on his awareness of the reality of his time. A balanced assessment of Toegye and Yulgok’s theory of political and social management is, therefore, urgently required.