17-8세기의 學術動向과 星湖 李瀷의 經學
An Academic Trend in 17-18th Century and Seong-ho Lee-ik's Study of Confucian
0
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
성호는 선현이 못다 밝힌 도를 밝히는 것을 후학의 임무라고 생각하여, 주자의 설에 의문이 있는 경우 자신의 견해를 제시하거나 주자의 설에 미비한 점이 있는 경우 자신의 설로 보충했다는 것이 된다. 여기까지 이르고 보면, 성호가 『맹자』를 다시 해석한 이유가 앞에서 명분상 내건 것과 다르다는 것을 직감할 수 있다.『맹자질서』 다음에 저술한 『대학질서』의 서문에도 그가 『대학』을 다시 해석하게 된 이유를 자세히 천명하고 있다. 이 「大學疾書序」를 살펴보면, 성호는 『대학』을 이해하기 어려웠던 점 네 가지를 열거하고, 그것을 해결할 목적으로 『대학』에 대한 재해석을 더하게 되었음을 밝혔는데, 이를 간추려 요약하면 다음과 같다.
Abstract
This article is a summarized review about an academic trend in 17-18th Century and Seong-ho Lee-ik's study of Confucian. Seong-ho's scripture interpretation scheme considers the pragmatism finally, he has always followed up the practicality throughly. More over, for the achievement of this object, he emphasized the academic principle of the doubt putting up the most priority task of the seeking the actual idea. Concerning on an attitude of scripture interpretation, Seong-ho showed us several patterns that of following the Chu-tsu(朱熹 : 1130-1200)'s theory, or adding a new interpretation or collecting the good points among various theories. Meanwhile, his own way of scripture interpretation basing on a practical way for finding out the actual idea represented next methods of ; text exegetical approach through observing character, moral approach through interpreting the morality, a various case finding approach that of Bang-chae-bak-gu(旁採博究) for the rational thinking. The reason that Seong-ho interpret [the books of Jil-seo](疾書類) is an new trial for gaining original meaning of scriptures. In addition, in the viewpoint of his interpretation on [So-hak](小學) and [Ju-ja-ga-rye](朱子家禮), we can find out that he needs a moral interpretation to fit for the those days. The Seong-ho's [the books of Jil-seo] interpretation shows us an outstanding significance that it goes a step forward to the practical interpretation in the viewpoint of the real society being ahead of former ideal interpretation. Especially, his main concept of ‘Chi-yong[治用]’ has not only the side of social administration but also the side of individual moral development. Therefore, it can be evaluated that the interpretation is considered both of individual moral practice and social real practice.