新儒學에서 마음과 도덕실천 ─張載와 二程형제의 철학을 중심으로─

Abstract

With focus on the Zhang-Zai(張載) and Cheng Brothers(二程; 程顥 & 程頤), this thesis is looking after the different perspectives about 'Mind(心)' in other words a consciousness of human being with its basic ground placed on theory of moral practice in Neo-Confucianism. Zhang-Zai's Qi(氣) philosophy and Cheng Brothers’ Li(理) philosophy have differently viewed the issue when a human being is morally good and natural in responding to a certain situation. For both of them, the ultimate goal to be accomplished is realization of benevolence(仁) which is represented as a basic factor of morality in Confucianism. However, what make those two different is found that Zhang-Zai’s philosophy is based on ‘Emptiness(虛)’ as it’s origin whereas Cheng Brothers and Zhu-xi(朱熹)’s philosophy is based on infinite ‘Creation(生)’ as it’s origin of formation. Such an ontological difference brought about the different viewpoints on a mind of human being in taking morality into practice. Zhang-Zai's Qi(氣) philosophy keep a stance that the moral practice is possibly done when the consciousness of human being reach to the state of emptiness and serenity in mind. For this, he also expresses concern about learning and practicing Li(禮) to empty mind and putting it into practice on a self-discipline and a moral code basis. It means that a moral practice is an objective to a systematical moral order than the independent capacity of human morality. In contrast with this, Cheng Brothers’ Li(理) philosophy claim that aside from current state of mind which discern the revelation of one’ nature(性), there is no extra original state of mind to be assumed. In viewing issues from this angle, human nature is considered as the subjective moral capacity, and they demand this capacity to be maintained and preserved in any situation by unified consciousness. It is the composure(敬) that means a concentrated consciousness in order to respond subjectively in case the stimulus was processed. To be address on a moral activity, the former view is making a passive stance in adopting external regulation of morality, the latter one is rather keeping an active stance in developing and demonstrating an internal capacity.