鄭齊斗와 中江藤樹의 『大學』 解釋 比較

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify the ideological systems in both Korea and Japan since the 17th century. Especially after the war, Korea and Japan were in a very difficult situation because of the social confusion caused by the influx of movement toward modernization. At that time, Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism was the mainstream a in two countries. Therefore, the intellectuals of the two countries tried to overcome the turbulent social phenomenon through the new values - Yangming’s Neo-Confucianism. Since Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju are evaluated as the founders of Yangming’s philosophy in Korea and Japan respectively, they set a turning point in Korean history and Japanese history. Confucians at the time started argument from the hermeneutical point of view of the Confusian classics. Therefore, this study will select two people, Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju, who showed the most remarkable difference against the exisiting Confucians among the understanding of “the great learning” in 17th century Joseon dynasty and Japan. This study is divided by : (i) the definition of “the three guidelines(三綱領)” and realationship among them, (iii) the understanding of “correcting affairs and realization of original knowledge(格物致知)” (iv) the analysis of “making one’s intentions sincere(誠意)”. Jeong Je-do regarded “making bright virtue brilliant(明明德)” and “having affection for the people(親民)” as “vertical line(經)”, and “coming to rest in the highest good(止於至善)” as “horizontal line(緯)”, which is his own unique theory of the three guidelines of the Great Learning. On the other hand, Nakae Toju affirms that only “making bright virtue brilliant” is the most important one among the three guidelines, and “having affection for the people” and “coming to rest in the highest good” are merely the world of ‘function’ in which “bright virtue(明德)” is realized. Both Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju accept Yangming’s interpretation of “Ge-wu(格物)” - correcting affairs(正物), however, the understanding about “zhi-zhi(致知)” differs from Zhu xi and Wang Yangming. Jeong Je-do only regards “Liangzhi(良知)” as “moral nature of human beings – the ability to recognize and judge morality(道德知)”. On the other hand, Nakae Toju understands “Liangzhi(良知)” as “mind of knowing right from wrong(是非之心)”. Therefore, the human behavior is regarded that Liangzhi is immediately revealed to reality. They also sought to find answers to “making one’s intentions sincere(誠意)” by identifying the origin of good and evil. Jeong Je-do accepts the interpretation of the “intention” of Zhu xi and Wang Yangming, which means “making one’s intentions sincere”. On the other hand, Nakae Toju regarded “Intention(意)” as “the source of all desire and all evil”. Therefore, he perceived ‘making one’s intentions sincere’ as “cleansing one’s self of something problematic(絶意)” or “desire that must be cut from human mind(毋意).” Through the above steps, the study compared the Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju, who are the two representative Wang Yangming scholars of Korea and Japan. I hope that this paper will be of some help in the study of Wang Yangming’s philosophy in the future of the three East Asian countries.