Matteo Ricci's Debate with A Confucian on Whether A Child's Theft to Support His Parents Is Good or Evil
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A child's filial duty to his parents across is ethics in all the ages and countries of the world. If he has stolen to support his parents, is it good or evil? In this respect, Matteo Ricci, a Catholic missionary in China, had a debate with a Confucian scholar of China. This topic has not been researched until now, so I research on this. A Confucian regarded it as the will of goodness based on Confucian ethics, but Matteo Ricci argued it neither good will nor good deed. Because he regarded good act as based on good will. His argument was that a child's theft is evil, even if a will of child to support his parents, filial piety, is good, this is evil after all. That goodness is perfect. A child's support for his parents is good, while his theft evil. Because of this, that child's act is not perfect, so this is not good but evil. At the time, this was punished by Daiminglu (大明律, the Great Laws of Ming Dynasty) of China. Therefore, that Confucian ethics was not suitable for the laws of times but ideal family ethics only. According to Matteo Ricci, that child's act is evil because a theft is evil. By contrast, a filial piety is good, so child's act is good, according to the Confucian. According to Matteo Ricci, the root of Good act is good will. This was the influence of Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle. Therefore, that of Matteo Ricci implies rather moral philosophy of Renaissance than Catholicism because Renaissance means the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. Because of this, their debate is a representative debate between West and East.
Abstract
A child's filial duty to his parents across is ethics in all the ages and countries of the world. If he has stolen to support his parents, is it good or evil? In this respect, Matteo Ricci, a Catholic missionary in China, had a debate with a Confucian scholar of China. This topic has not been researched until now, so I research on this. A Confucian regarded it as the will of goodness based on Confucian ethics, but Matteo Ricci argued it neither good will nor good deed. Because he regarded good act as based on good will. His argument was that a child's theft is evil, even if a will of child to support his parents, filial piety, is good, this is evil after all. That goodness is perfect. A child's support for his parents is good, while his theft evil. Because of this, that child's act is not perfect, so this is not good but evil. At the time, this was punished by Daiminglu (大明律, the Great Laws of Ming Dynasty) of China. Therefore, that Confucian ethics was not suitable for the laws of times but ideal family ethics only. According to Matteo Ricci, that child's act is evil because a theft is evil. By contrast, a filial piety is good, so child's act is good, according to the Confucian. According to Matteo Ricci, the root of Good act is good will. This was the influence of Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle. Therefore, that of Matteo Ricci implies rather moral philosophy of Renaissance than Catholicism because Renaissance means the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. Because of this, their debate is a representative debate between West and East.
참고문헌 (27)
- Ames, R., "The Analects of Confucius" (1998), The Ballantine Publishing Group
- Aquinas, T., "Summa Theologica, in The Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas" (2018)
- Aquinas, T., "Summa Contra Gentiles, in The Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas (Kindle Edition)" (2018)
- Aristotle, "Physics, Aristotle: The Complete Works of Aristotle" (2020)
- Aristotle, "The Nicomachean Ethics" (2009), Oxford University Press
- Baker, D., "Thomas Aquinas and Chong Yagyong: Rebels Within Tradition", Tasan hak (Tasan Learning), 3, pp.3269~ (2002)
- "Daiming lu 大明律 (The Great Laws of Ming Dynasty)" (1998), 法律出版社(Falu chubanshe)
- Gardner, D., "The Analects, in The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition" (2007)
- "Lunyu 論語 (Analects)" (1970), Sungkyunkwan University Press
- Mencius, "Translated by Irene Bloom, edited and with an introduction by Philip Ivanhoe" (2011), Columbia University Press
- "Mengzi 孟子(The Mencius)" (1970), Sungkyunkwan University Press
- Ricci, M., "Tianzhu shiyi 天主實義 (The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven)" (1923), Shanghai Tushanyin Shuguan
- Ricci, M., "The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven" (1985), The Institute of Jesuit Sources, in cooperation with The Ricci Institute Taipei
- Li Zhizao 李之藻, "Chonghe ershi wuyan 重核二十五言 (Twenty-five Proverbs). In Tianshe huan 天學初函" (1965), Taiwan xuesheng shuju 臺灣學生書局
- "Shujing 書經 (The Classic of Documents)" (1984), Sungkyunkwan University Press
- Xunzi 荀子集解, "Xunzi 荀子集解, In 漢文大系" (1984), 富山房
- "Zhongyong 中庸 (The Doctrine of the Mean)" (1970), Sungkyunkwan University Press
- "Zhouli 周禮 (The Laws of Zhou Dynasty)", Korean National Library, ~
- Zhu Xi, "Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (Classified Conversations of Master Zhu)" (1999), Zhonghua shuju
- Ganss, G., "Saint Ignatius' Idea of Jesuit University" (1905), Marquette University Press
- Nadal, J., "Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu(Historical Society of Jesus)" (1901), Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu(Institute historian of the Society of Jesus)
- Jimenez, J. A. C., "La Interpretacion Ricciana del Confucianismo, perspectivas sobre su cultura e historia. Tomo 1", pp.2~330 (2006), El Colegio de Mexico
- 에 나타나 16세기 후반 예수회 대학의 교과과정과 예수회 토미즘(Jesuit Thomism)의 영향, "한국기독교신학논총", 2005, 291~312, pp.한국기독교학회
- 이봉규, "동서의 지적 交錯 : 『천주실의』의 理 해석과 그 반향", 동방학지, (175), pp.129~166 (2016), 국학연구원[DOI]
- Gallagher, L. J., "China in the Sixteen Century: The Journals of Matteo Ricci 1583-1610" (1953), Randomhouse
- 양명수, "？？천주실의？？ 에 나타난 아퀴나스 신학과 마테오 리치의 성리학 이해에 대한 비판－리(理)와 천주의 개념을 중심으로－", 철학사상, (28), pp.161~211 (2008), 철학사상연구소[DOI]
- 양명수, "『천주실의』의 천주(天主)와 성리학의 리(理)의 차이－아퀴나스의 목적인과 능동인의 관계를 중심으로－", 철학사상, (31), pp.215~248 (2009), 철학사상연구소[DOI]