A Research Methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism
1
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article suggests a new research methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism. In order to do this, we need first to be clear about the nature of Korean Neo-Confucianism in relation to the question of whether it can be legitimately called philosophy in the Western sense of the term. In this article, I shall focus on the following questions: (1) Is there such a thing as world or universal philosophy? (2) Can Korean Neo-Confucianism be considered to be world philosophy? (3) What is the reason for the Western rejection of non-Western thought as philosophy? And (4) what conditions are required for Korean Neo-Confucianism to remain as a science which is understandable to the ordinary man of reason?I offer a negative answer to (1) for the reason that there is no consensus on the definition of philosophy itself. And if there is no such philosophy, we do not have to be concerned with (2). In relation to (3), I examine Defoort who blames the rejection of the existence or legitimacy of Chinese philosophy on Western chauvinism or ethnocentrism. Unlike Defoort, I consider that the rejection is rather due to Western indifference to, or ignorance of, East Asian traditions of thought. The main contention here is that, although there is no such thing as world philosophy, contemporary Korean Neo-Confucian scholars still need to satisfy a number of basic conditions to make Korean Neo-Confucianism a science worthy of discussion in the future. In answer to (4), I here suggest consistency, validity, and conceptual clarity as such conditions. They are in general called logical elements since they are most commonly found in Western books on logic, but they are in effect “commonsensical” in that they are basic elements required in everyday conversation. It is hoped that the conditions should not be taken as a repetition of a controversy over the definition of philosophy, but simply as a “commonsensical” suggestion to write various traditions of thought in a “commonsensical” way.
Abstract
This article suggests a new research methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism. In order to do this, we need first to be clear about the nature of Korean Neo-Confucianism in relation to the question of whether it can be legitimately called philosophy in the Western sense of the term. In this article, I shall focus on the following questions: (1) Is there such a thing as world or universal philosophy? (2) Can Korean Neo-Confucianism be considered to be world philosophy? (3) What is the reason for the Western rejection of non-Western thought as philosophy? And (4) what conditions are required for Korean Neo-Confucianism to remain as a science which is understandable to the ordinary man of reason?I offer a negative answer to (1) for the reason that there is no consensus on the definition of philosophy itself. And if there is no such philosophy, we do not have to be concerned with (2). In relation to (3), I examine Defoort who blames the rejection of the existence or legitimacy of Chinese philosophy on Western chauvinism or ethnocentrism. Unlike Defoort, I consider that the rejection is rather due to Western indifference to, or ignorance of, East Asian traditions of thought. The main contention here is that, although there is no such thing as world philosophy, contemporary Korean Neo-Confucian scholars still need to satisfy a number of basic conditions to make Korean Neo-Confucianism a science worthy of discussion in the future. In answer to (4), I here suggest consistency, validity, and conceptual clarity as such conditions. They are in general called logical elements since they are most commonly found in Western books on logic, but they are in effect “commonsensical” in that they are basic elements required in everyday conversation. It is hoped that the conditions should not be taken as a repetition of a controversy over the definition of philosophy, but simply as a “commonsensical” suggestion to write various traditions of thought in a “commonsensical” way.
참고문헌 (35)
- Charlton. W., "The Analytic Ambition" (1991), Blackwell
- Cheong, Chung-Ying, "Inquiries into Classical Chinese Logic", Philosophy East and West, 15(3, pp.4) (1965), 195~216
- Ch’oe Yŏng-jin, "Logical approach to the motility of li in T’oegye", A collection of writings for Dr. Yu Chŏngdong’s 60th birthday celebration, pp.87~108 (1981)
- Choi Young Jin, "The historical mode of Confucian thought in the Chosŏn dynasty" (2005), Sungkyunkwan University Press
- Ch’oe Yŏng-sŏng, "The history of the study of Eastern philosophy for fifty years", Korean thought and culture, 10, pp.175~295 (2000)
- Chŏn Ho-gŭn. 1995. "Chu Hŭi simsŏngnon ŭi Han’gukchŏk chŏngae rŭl wihan ch’oech’o ŭi kaltŭng"(The first conflict for the Korean way of improvement of Zhu Xi’s theory of mind and nature). In Han’guk Chŏlhak Sasang Yŏn’guhoe(ed. )., "The first conflict for the Korean way of improvement of Zhu Xi’s theory of mind and nature, In Korean Philosophy viewed through its controversies" (1995), Yŏmun sŏwŏn
- Chŏng Hae-ch’ang, "Is a methodology for Korean philosophy possible?", Research into Korean philosophy, 26(2), pp.31~51 (2003)
- Defoort, C, "Is There Such a Thing as Chinese Philosophy? Arguments of an Implicit Debate", Philosophy East and West, 51(3), pp.393~413 (2001)
- Defoort, C., "Is ‘Chinese Philosophy’ a Proper Name?", Philosophy East and West, 56(4), pp.625~660 (2006)
- Fung Yu-lan, "A History of Chinese Philosophy. Vol. I" (1952), Princeton University Press
- Hong Wŏn-sik, "The current situation and task in the research into Korean philosophy", Keimyung Korean studies journal, 29, pp.107~120 (2002)
- Kalton, M. C, "The Four-Seven Debate" (1984), State University of New York Press
- Kim Ki-hyŏn, "T’oegye’s Four-Seven Theory, In Sadanch’iljŏngnon", pp.49~68 (1992), Sŏgwangsa
- 김영건, "보편철학과 한국 성리학？퇴계와 율곡을 중심으로", 동양철학연구, (43), pp.111~150 (2005), 동양철학연구회
- 김영민, "논단: 한국철학사 방법론-한국철학사 연구와 인문학 교육", 오늘의 동양사상, 12, pp.207~230 (2005), 예문동양사상연구원
- Nam Sang-ho, "An introduction to a methodology for Chinese philosophy", The Study of Eastern Philosophy, 6, pp.1~15 (1996)
- Sim Chae-ryong, "Two attitudes for doing East Asian philosophy", pp.227~249 (1986)
- Sim Chae-ryong, "Attitudes for doing philosophy in Korea" (1986), Jipmundang
- Solomon, R. C., "Introducing Philosophy" (1997), Harcourt Brace & Company
- Solomon, R. C, "'What Is Philosophy?’ The Status of World Philosophy in the Profession", Philosophy East and West, 51(1), pp.100~104 (2001)
- Sŏng Tae-yong, "Eastern philosophy—Reflections on the research methodology", pp.251~270 (1986)
- Tu Wei-ming, "Yi Hwang’s Perception of the Mind", Korea Journal, 18(9,), pp.30~34 (1978)
- Yi Ch’an, "How will we study traditional philosophy", The Study of Eastern Philosophy, 34, pp.55~89 (2010)
- Yi Tong-hŭi, "A study on the ambiguity of philosophical concepts in East Asian philosophy", The Study of Confucian Thought and Culture, 3, pp.417~456 (1997)
- Yi Tong-hŭi, "The historical significance of the characteristics of Ugye’s Theory of Nature and Mind", Keimyung Korean Studies Journal, 24, pp.257~291 (1997)
- Yi Nam-yŏng, "East Asian philosophy—Two ways of research", pp.157~173 (1979)
- Yi Sang-ho, "A draft of research into Sŏngnihak in the Chosŏn dynasty", The Journal of Asian Philosophy in Korea, 25, pp.189~215 (2001)
- Yi Tong-jun, "An introduction to the attitude and method in the research into Korean philosophy", The Study of Confucian Thought and Culture, 14, pp.349~376 (2000)
- 유원기, "조선 성리학의 논리적 특성", 동서철학연구, 53(53), pp.45~68 (2009), 한국동서철학회
- Yoo Weon-Ki, "An analytical examination of the debate in the 16th-century Chosŏn Sŏngnihak: Focussed on the Four-Seven Debate between T’oegye and Kobong, and the Human Mind-Moral Mind Debate between Ugye and Yulgok", 박사, pp.2011
- 유원기, "A Philosophical Analysis of the Concept “Bal", Fa 發” in the Four-Seven Debate between Toegye and Gobong, 2012, pp.52(2), 92~115[DOI]
- 유원기, "IS YULGOK’S THEORY OF MIND CONSISTENT?", Acta Koreana, 15(1), pp.147~162 (2012), 한국학연구원
- Yoo Weon-Ki, "The research trend and task on the philosophy of T’oegye and Yulgok", Keimyung Korean Studies Journal, 50, pp.127~155 (2013)
- Yun Sa-sun, "Contemporary interpretation of T’oegye’s philosophy of li and ki", T’oegye hakpo, 110, pp.119~144 (2001)
- 윤용남, "朱子 心說의 體用理論的 分析", 동양철학연구, 41, pp.283~320 (2005), 동양철학연구회