한국사상 원형에 대한 남북한의 연구비교 — ‘풍류(風流)’담론의 전개 양상을 중심으로 —

Abstract

The issue of the archetype in Korean thought has been raised in earnest as it gets into the modern times. At that time, the archetype discourse was recognized by modern thinkers as a value to dynamically respond to the changes of the times. However, the discussion of the modern succession and transformation of the archetype is cut off with the arrival of the division. After the division of the Korean peninsula, the issue of archetype was not only ideologically different, but also in the process of forming philosophical thought, the difference of opposing viewpoints was revealed. This study analyzed and compared the differences in ancient thought after the division, focusing on ‘Pung‐ryu’. While Choi Chi‐won’s ‘Pung‐ryu’ was discussed as the archetype of Korean thought centering on Shin Chae‐ho, Choi Nam‐seon, and Jeong In‐bo etc., in addition, it developed into aspects of ‘Tangun (檀君) Hongikinkan (弘益人間)’ and ‘Sunin (仙人)’, etc. In the case of South Korea, the ‘Pung‐ryu’ discourse was entrenched as a primordial discourse by encompassing the boundaries between religion and thought. It was constantly present and transformed, discussing it differently in different situations and thinkers of the times. This point can be seen as a result of being derived by mixing with concepts such as ‘Dangun’, ‘Hongikinkan’, ‘Hwarang(花郞)’, and ‘Meot(멋) ather than being identified by ‘Pung‐ryu’ itself. In North Korea, the archetype discourse appears in terms of the occurrence of philosophical thinking. In other words, the occurrence of materialism thinking was discussed around 'chi'. and the discourse of 'Pung-ryu' was discussed as a progressive thought or an thought with feudal and reactionary characteristics. The conflicting assessment of ‘Pung‐ryu’ reveals a logical flaw in the discourse. In the discourse on the archetype of the two Koreas examined so far, it was possible to examine the transformation of the archetype thought shared in the modern times. Through this, we can see that the barriers of indigenous ideology have been strengthened just like the geographical barriers of South and North Korea.