<大學> 설을 둘러싼 성호학파의 갈등 양상과 그 의미

Abstract

Some scholars in the Seong-Ho School(星湖學派) did not admit the theory of Zhu-Xi's reconstruceted Daxue (朱子大學) but began to present the theory of the the Ancient Text Daxue. This paper tries to investigate the contents of their theory and examine its implications. To begin with, some of Seong-Ho's students such as Sin Hu-Dam(愼後聃) and Lee Byeong-Hyu(李秉休) raised the theory of the he the Ancient Text Daxue, and then Lee Gi-Yang(李基讓) and Gwon Cheol-Sin(權哲身) etc. agreed to their claim, which later was accepted by Jeong Yak-Yong(丁若鏞). On the other hand, An Jeong-Bok(安鼎福) criticized the theory of the Ancient Text Daxue in order to hold the theory of Zhu-Xi's Daxue, and then his student, Hwang Deok-Gil(黃德吉) agreed with him. I can summarize the arguments of the scholars who claimed the theory of the Ancient Text Daxue as the following four points. First, they did not follow Zhu-Xi's new edited Daxue in which he had reconstructed order of the Ancient Text Daxue but followed the Ancient Text Daxue without any modification. Second, they completely did not deny Zhu-Xi's gewuzhizhi(格物致知; investgation and extending one's knowledge) as Wang Yang-Ming did. Instead, they tried to reveal its practical meaning limiting its range to wu(物) as object things within Daxue. Third, they took mingde(明德; brilliant virtues) to be piety(孝), reverence(弟), and mercy(慈), which they regarded as being acquired with postnatal endeavor, not as a priori inherent. Fourth, they derived a new concept of body and soul not following the Zhu-Xi's theory. These critical points of the scholars' have some similarity to the theory of the Taji School(泰州學派), but do not fully agree with it. There are some logic in their own theory. We have explore some issues related to these problems.