INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN BY CHOSŎN CONFUCIAN SCHOLARS: TRADITIONAL/THEORETICAL AND REVISIONIST/PRACTICAL
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A thorough understanding of the study of the Classics in the Chosŏn dynasty requires careful analysis of all of the classics. In this article, I will focus on one specific classical book, the Doctrine of the Mean. The interpretation of the Doctrine of the Mean can be divided into two main academic scholarly groups: one group deepened and developed the Neo-Confucian system of thought inherited from Zhu Xi, while the other emphasized the superior practical applications of the original Confucian philosophy and criticized the theory of Neo-Confucianism as too ideological without clear practical application. The former group emphasized two points. First, they expanded the theory of self-cultivation to include Neo-Confucianist theory concerning mind-nature. Second, proponents of this group eventually developed the Neo-Confucianist theory of mind-nature as one of the core topics in the seventeenth-century Horak debate. The second group scholars rejected Zhu Xi’s authority with respect to the Doctrine of the Mean, including, for example, his thirty-three-chapter system of dividing the previously undivided text of the book. Instead, this group criticized Zhu Xi’s addition of two chapters of his own to the Doctrine of the Mean, and used their own chapter system to divide the book, excluding Zhu Xi’s additions. They not only criticized Zhu Xi’s stance on metaphysical analysis, but also emphasized that the core of the Doctrine of the Mean should be to put the course of the Mean into practice in everyday life and human relations.
Abstract
A thorough understanding of the study of the Classics in the Chosŏn dynasty requires careful analysis of all of the classics. In this article, I will focus on one specific classical book, the Doctrine of the Mean. The interpretation of the Doctrine of the Mean can be divided into two main academic scholarly groups: one group deepened and developed the Neo-Confucian system of thought inherited from Zhu Xi, while the other emphasized the superior practical applications of the original Confucian philosophy and criticized the theory of Neo-Confucianism as too ideological without clear practical application. The former group emphasized two points. First, they expanded the theory of self-cultivation to include Neo-Confucianist theory concerning mind-nature. Second, proponents of this group eventually developed the Neo-Confucianist theory of mind-nature as one of the core topics in the seventeenth-century Horak debate. The second group scholars rejected Zhu Xi’s authority with respect to the Doctrine of the Mean, including, for example, his thirty-three-chapter system of dividing the previously undivided text of the book. Instead, this group criticized Zhu Xi’s addition of two chapters of his own to the Doctrine of the Mean, and used their own chapter system to divide the book, excluding Zhu Xi’s additions. They not only criticized Zhu Xi’s stance on metaphysical analysis, but also emphasized that the core of the Doctrine of the Mean should be to put the course of the Mean into practice in everyday life and human relations.
참고문헌 (14)
- "Compilation of Korean studies on Confucian Classics, Vol. 10, 11, and 14" (1989), Sungkyunkwan University Press
- Paek’o chŏnsŏ, "Complete works of Yun Hyu, Vol. 35" (1996), Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics
- Sagye chŏnsŏ, "Complete works of Kim Chang-saeng Vol. 13" (2000), Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics
- Andrew Plax, "Ta Hsüeh and Chung Yung" (2003), Penguin Classics
- An Pyŏng-gŏl, "A study on the interpreting Confucian classic text in the Confucianism of Chosŏn dynasty in the seventeenth century", Ph.D., pp.1991
- Chan, Wing-tsit, "A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy" (1963), Princeton University Press
- Ch’oe Sŏk-ki, "The prospect and retrospect of the study of Korean Confucianism", The study of Chinese characters, 19, pp.153~213 (2003)
- Ch’oe Sŏk-ki, "Namdang Han, Won-jin’s interpretation way of Zhongyong and its achievements", The study of Chinese characters, 16, pp.217~250 (2007)
- Ch’oe Sŏk-ki, "The features of Namdang Han wŏn-jin’s Zhongyong interpretation and its significance", The study of Chinese characters, 32, pp.271~303 (2007)
- Chŏng Il-kyun, "A study on the study of Confucian classics of Tasan" (2000), Iljisa
- Ian Johnston, "Daxue and Zhongyong" (2012), The Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Kŭm Chang-t’ae, "Succession and reform of classical study in Korea", The study of East Asian culture and thoughts, 49, pp.1~37 (2005)
- Ŏm Yŏn-sŏk, "T’oegye’s interpretation of the Zhongyong and its characteristic", The study of Korean culture, 36, pp.161~202 (2005)
- Roger T. Ames, "Focusing the Familiar" (2001), University of Hawai’i Press