소론계 격물 訓義 논변의 맥락을 통해 본 박세채와 정제두의 격물설

Abstract

This study examined the reasons why Park Sechae’s and Jeong Jedu’s view on Gyeokmul were formed and developed based on the Cheng-Zhu Confucianism and the Lu-Wang Confucianism, respectively, and the contents of the context of Gyeokmul debates between Soron(Disciple’s Faction) scholars around 1690. The Soron scholars’ Gyeokmul debates, which occurred intensively in 1690, were developed by questioning the existing academic practice of equating Gyeokmul with Goongli based on the interpretation of Zhu Xi’s Daxudzhangju, and the parties to the debates carefully analyzed the interpretation of related vocabulary and sentences, or even tried to understand ‘Gyeokmul’ outside the scope of Zhu Xi’s doctrine. In addition, they politically analyzed ‘Goongli’, while also considering ‘Gyeokmul’, which has been treated as equivalent to ‘Gyeokmul’. Accordingly, Park Sechae is more closely related ‘Goongli’ and ‘Jeukmul-Gyeokmul’ based on Zhu Xi’s initial theory, and Jeong Jedu separated ‘Gyeokmul’ with ‘Jeukmul-Goongli’ based on the first edition of Great Learning, but identified ‘Goongli-Jinseong’ as a practical study that penetrates ‘Gyeok-Chi-Seong-Jeong’. In order to understand the two scholars’ view on Gyeokmul, it is necessary to pay attention not only to their own ideological background, but also to the debates on interpretation for Gyeokmul, which was held at the same time, especially the “Gyeokmugungui” debate. The “Gyeokmugungui” claimed by Yi Segu and Yi Sepil means that the word ‘Gyeok’ does not have the meaning of ‘Goong[investigating]’ in terms of the meaning of the word, and Park Sechae was able to think about the meaning of ‘Goongli’ to respond to Jeong Jedu’s view or to establish his own view on Gyeokmul through his argument with Yi brothers. The debate itself also opened the possibility of ‘Gyeokmul’ free from the valuable study methodology in that it considered whether ‘Gyeokmul’ as a term could be independent from the study. However, the speculative nature of interpretation debate is somewhat far from discussing the essence of Confucian study of moral practice. The advent of this speculative argument provides implications for understanding the driving force of the academic dynamism of intellectuals in the late Joseon Dynasty, who wanted to break away from Zhu Xi’s orthodoxy.