하린의 지행합일신론 연구- 동서철학 융합적 특징 및 의의를 중심으로 -

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine what characteristics and meanings He Lin’s new doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action. First, I analyzes which Western Philosophies He Lin’s theory absorbed to make traditional doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action anew. Based on the results, this study has found that He Lin defined the concepts of knowing(知) and doing(行) with conscious activities and physiological activities in his so-called doctrine of the natural unity of knowing and doing, and applied Spinoza’s parallelism to reinterpret the implications of the unity of knowing and doing, and allowed the research results on Western philosophies to be absorbed into China’s doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action. Also, borrowing psychological terms, ‘explicit (顯)’ and ‘implicit (隱)’, he divided the levels of knowing and doing into two. He also says that the concept of knowing in doctrine of the axiological unity of knowledge and action including China’s traditional doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action is ‘the union of clear consciousness and unclear behavior’ and the concept of doing can be defined more strictly with ‘the union of clear behavior and unclear consciousness.’ Also, it has been found that since He Lin did absorb Spinoza’s parallelism, he could make clear the generation of Knowing and doing was non-simultaneous in traditional doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action. Next, based on his own theory, He Lin analyzed which aspects were stressed in Wang Yangming and Zhu Xi’s theories of relationship between knowledge and action, and examined which points were rather distorted or criticized to analyze similarities and differences between them. As a result, it has been found that He Lin and Wang Yangming were similar in that they both stressed the balance of knowledge and action in relation to the principles of education, they talked about the intrinsic unity of knowing and doing, and they thought knowing and doing were two aspects of a single process. But they were also different because Wang Yangming stressed mutually tolerant relations between knowledge and action and the importance of action, while He Lin emphasized clear conceptual division of knowledge and action and the importance of knowledge. Also, He Lin and Zhu Xi were similar as they strongly tended to be intellectualistic, but they were different, too, because He Lin constantly stressed the initiative of knowledge but Zhu Xi emphasized action as well as knowledge. Discussion over He Lin’s doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action as above is regarded significant in that it made the Western theories of relationship between the mind and body into Chinese’ and redefined the implications of traditional doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action precisely and transmitted it critically. Yet, it is sorry that his excessive intellectualistic tendencies made the meaning of action something minor.