18세기 호락논변에 끼친 율곡학의 영향 - ‘理通氣局說’을 중심으로

Abstract

This paper is an examination of Yul-gok(栗谷)’s theory of ‘Li-tong Ki-kuk(理通氣局)’, which is representative of Korean philosophy, and the related discourse of successive academics. Korean philosophers have sought to be liberated from the quintessential search for tangible desires that inevitably plague human kind, in achieving a morality that overleaps the bounds of human nature. Yul-gok refers to the natural state of human desire as ‘Ki(氣)’, or ‘Ki-jil’ essential energy(氣質), and argues that humans are, from the outset, imbued with a morally pure essential energy. Yul-gok’s notion of ‘Li-tong Ki-kuk’ fundamentally asserts that this pure, moral essential energy allows one to attain the universal logic that underlies the world. However, Yul-Gok acknowledges the reality that humans do not solely possess a pure essential energy. Subsequently, he emphasises the need to constantly strive to transform other various kinds of essential energy in order to restore one’s original, pure heart. Two schools of thought centred upon the eighteenth-century scholars ‘Nam-dang(南塘)’ and ‘Whe-am(巍巖)’ largely characterise the contention surrounding Yul-gok’s propositions. Nam-dang suggests that irrespective of the extent to which a human is pure, they can not entirely rid themselves of the essential energy that is ground in their biological configuration more specifically, the influence of Ki-jil or natural disposition. He argues that strict, external moral codes that regulate humans are necessitated by our potential to conduct evil as a result of the longing to pursue our natural desires. On the contrary, Whe-am emphasises that humans possess a pure heart that is untainted by greed, from birth. He presents a hopeful and optimistic perspective, contending that the primary aim of study is to locate this pure essential energy that exists within the human heart. This theoretical approach has been coined ‘Ho-rak(湖洛)’ discourse. Although ‘Ho-rak’ discourse has been the subject of debate that, at times, has rendered its expression in extreme terms, ‘Ho-rak’ discourse does not, to a large extent, diverge from ‘Yul-gok’ philosophy. This may be attributed to the breadth of the spectrum of essential energy encompassed by Yul-gok’s proposal that various kinds of natural tendencies should be transformed so as to achieve the practice of pure morality. However, Ho-rak theory may be distinguished from Yul-gok philosophy, in terms of the rationale it proposes for the inability to narrow the breadth of this essential energy.