확정과 불확정의 이중구조로 본 아동본질에 대한 탐구

Abstract

What is nature of children? David Hume said as follows in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: “The table, which we see, seems to diminish, as we remove farther from it: But the real table, which exists independent of us, suffers no alteration: It was, therefore, nothing but its image, which was present to the mind.” Admittedly, nature of children is not form but real. Turning to the setting of the argument, “children are Spinozaite.” This sentence is the philosophy of the hermeneutical turn described as deconstruction of previous interpretation of children. For this reason I pay attention to the double images which arises from the Nature of natures of children. The term ‘appearances’ of the Nature of natures which children have takes strong visual connotations. The defining interpretation of this premise is being implicitly contrasted with certain lens to nature of children, that is, natal determinism and environmental determinism which are placed nature of children. But the other lens in this article involves not only the defining interpretation but also the non-defining interpretation that are emerged the nature of natures. Now, we can say on nature of children: “Nowhere but everywhere.” This argument tries to drive a wedge to the objectionable argument undermined by ‘the proper stance of sight.’