『논어(論語)』의 ‘직(直)’ -‘직궁(直躬)’ 이야기와 정의(justice)의 딜레마?-

Abstract

The interpretation of traditional classics often reflects the conflict of reality. One such example is the controversy related to the ‘zhi(直)’ of the Analects of Confucius. In China, Confucius’s ‘zhi’ seems to have been understood as a discussion related to a dilemma of filial piety and social justice. The saying of Confucius, seemingly defending the son who concealed the father’s theft, seems to be so interpretable. However, if we take a comprehensive look at the “anecdote of Zigong(直躬),” which appears in various literatures, it is less likely. I pointed out in this paper that the word ‘zhi’ has at least three concepts and the meaning is not simple. Secondly, the “anecdote of Zigong(直躬),” is appeared in various literatures besides the Analects, and can be mainly divided into two transmissions. In the one line of the Analects, Zhuangzi, and Huainanzi, there are the discourse, in which was discussed as the matters of uprightness(直) or truthworthiness(信). The other line is the Annals of Lü Buwei and Han Feizi, where we find a discussion that can be seen as a dilemma of the filial and justice. In this way, we see that todays the view of the dilemma of filial piety and social justice is based on the legalist interpretation rather than the Confucians. In addition, the “anecdote of Zigong” of the Analects may be a story that reflects the reality where human emotions, morals, and law coexist. In addition, the anecdote can be read as a story that shows the process of combining ritual forms and emotional elements. Similarly, even if we interpret the story of Zigong as a debate involving filial piety and justice, the two may not necessarily be contradictory concepts. For from the Confucian vision of society or a modern point of view, a just society can mean a society where filial piety is recommended or better for the practice of filial piety. Indeed, Korean scholarly translators and commentators find no way of interpreting the “anecdote of Zigong” as a dilemma between filial piety and social justice. Perhaps this reflects the reality of China and the reality of Korea. We can see from this that the interpretation and controversy of ‘classics’ sometimes reflects the problem of the reality in which interpreters live rather than the meaning of the classic itself. In that sense, the difference in the interpretation of the anecdote of Zigong might be seen as a testament to the difference in social reality between China and Korea.