조선조 관료 지식인의 양명학관 연구(2)

Abstract

This is a study to look into the meaning and problems of Yi Hwang‘s criticism on the Yang-ming studies. Its historical meaning was traced in the light of the history of political thought in Joseon Dynasty. First, the background of how the critical attitude against Yang-ming studies was formed is looked into in terms of political culture and academic groups. Three factors has affected to form a political and academic background that accused of Yang-ming studies as a heresy; political culture focused on Zhu-zi Studies, tendency of relying on the national school, and scholarship confined to the mind study. That is a reason why Neo-Confucian scholars in Joseon Dynasty have neglected Yang-ming studies overall. Yi Hwang earnestly tried to figure out the main flow of Yang-ming studies and went as far as to label them with Zen-Buddism. Such criticism of Yi Hwang has overlooked an important philosophical issue, especially down-to-earth perspective and experience in actual life of Wang shou-ren. Yi Hwang criticizes Wang shou-ren severely for his theory of ‘loving the people(親民)’, of ‘no principle outside the mind(心外無理)’, and ‘the doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action(知行合一說)’. Yi Hwang’s criticism of ‘the theory of loving the people’ has its own meaning as long as it tried to lure in the citizens into the ethical order system of Confucianism in Joseon Dynasty. However, Yi Hwang did not understand that ‘the theory of loving the people’ of Wang shou-ren was submitted in the same manner as a political principle that realizes the kingly way of moral principles. Yi Hwang also criticized a premise of Yang-ming studies that there is ‘no principle outside the mind’, since Yi Hwang laid great emphasis on the Zhu-zi Studies by which he wanted secure the objectivity of conduct norm and set the ethical order of the Joseon society. However, Yi Hwang did not comprehend the purpose of ‘the concurrence theory of mind and principle(心卽理說)’. The basic purpose of ‘the concurrence theory of mind and principle’ is to block the despotic way of power and realize the kingly way of moral principles. Yi Hwang’s criticism against ‘the theory of the highest good(至善說)’ of Wang shou-ren has its meaning in that it objectify the li(‘理’) itself and provide the way of intellectual research. However, Yi Hwang did not fully understand the purpose of Wang shou-ren: Through setting a standard of conduct in human mind, everybody can secure the practical morality with subjectivity. The criticism of Yi Hwang on Wang shou-ren‘s doctrine of ’the unity of knowledge and action’ has its meaning in its emphasis on the point that thorough acknowledgement and acting for human will should be pursued together. However, Yi Hwang could not admit the basic grounds of ‘the doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action’ of Wang shou-ren. The basic purpose of Wang shou-ren’s ‘doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action’ is to keep non-moral thoughts from settling down in the minds of ordinary people. Now we can interpret the meaning of Yi Hwang’s criticism of Yang ming studies in terms of political field and in point of view of historical thought. In its essence, it solidified the Zhu-zi Studies’ ruling grounds and prevented Yang-ming studies from settling down into the minds of Joseon. As far as the limits of Yi Hwang’s criticism of Yan-ming studies concerned, I would point out that it did not deeply look into the philosophical issues of Wang shou-ren on Zhu-zi Studies. Moreover, Yi Hwang did not recognize the practical meaning of various theories of Yang ming studies. The criticism of Yi Hwang on Yang-ming studies had its clear effect on the history of thoughts in Joseon Dynasty, especially on homochromous development of Zhu-zi studies lacking variety and broad range of academic contents.