栗谷의 哲學思想에 關한 硏究 : 理氣之妙를 中心으로 = (A) study on Yul-Gok philosophy : in the viewpoint of I-Ki-Ji-Myo

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The writer supposes that the essential viewpoint of Yul-Gok philosophy is the I-Ki-Ji-Myo(理氣之妙) ; The profound harmony of I and Ki) Therefore, this study intends to prove the propriety of that supposition. The word 'I-Ki-Ji-Myo'had been used in the Chinese-and Yi-dynasty before Yul-Gok, and Yul-Gok, with borrowing it, made the ord a fundamental concept in his own philosophy. He declares himself that a comprehension of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo is the key for comprehension of his own philosophy, and his philosophy generally has the logical structure of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. Now, lets examine the structure of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo in his philosophy.
I. Cosmology: his cosmology is mainly composed of a theory of the Tai-Geuk(太極) and Eum-Yang(陰陽), I(理) and Ki(氣). He understood Tai-Geuk as I and understood Eum-Yang as Ki by influence of a coventional Confucianism. He criticizes a assertion that Tai-Geuk or Tai-huh(太虛) exist before Eum-Yang; for all things in the universe by nature are profoundly made up of Tai-Geuk and Eum-Yang. In respect of time, Tai-Geuk and Eum-Yang have no before-and after-relation to each other, in respect of space, no meeting and parting relation. He, thus, denies that Tai-Geuk or Tai-huh exist before Eum-Yang, and understandes that this world is the profound harmony of Tai-Geuk and Eum-Yang. We can not mention Tai-Geuk and Eum-Yang from the side of before and after, and can not admit the independent existence of Tai-Geuk without Eum-Yang.
Besides, the structure of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo runs through in his theory of I-Ki too. He succeeds to Chu-Tzu(朱子) in the interpretation of the concept 'I-Ki'; however, it is his characteristic that he interprets the concept 'I-Ki' in the interdependent relation. The theory of I-Tong-Ki-Kook(理通氣局) and the theory of Ki-Bal-I-Seung-Il-Do(氣發理乘一途), his representative doctrines, are only another expression of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. The I-Tong-Ki-Kook is a doctrine-system in which the theory of I-Il-Boon-Soo(理一分殊) and the theory of Ki-Il-Boon-Soo(氣一分殊) are synthesized. A assertion that he thought the Ki-Il-Boon-Soo is a new fact, and the evidence of it is the Cheon-Do-Chaik(天道策) and the Soo-Y0-Chaik(壽夭策). The word 'I-Tong-Ki-Kook' is the expression of the I's universality and the Ki's locality in the position of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. It is the 'I-Tong' that the real natures of human being, animals and plants are idenical with one another in their origin, in the meantime, it is the 'Ki-Kook' that they are distinguished respectively.
Especially, a many commentators of Yul-Gok philosophy have denied the original Ki to form the basis of the individual Ki's, but the writer does not deny such a original Ki, For, in the position of Yul-Gok philosophy which premises the indivisible relativity of I-Ki, the Ki has to exist anywhere, anytime at all as well as the I has to exist anywhere, anytime. It is evident in that he has already insisted on the theory of Ki-Il-Boon-Soo too.
And besides, he maintains the theory of Ki-Bal-I-Seung-Il-Do against Yi-Hwang(李滉)'s theory of I-Ki-Ho-Bal(理氣互發). The word 'Ki-Bal-I-Seung' is the manifestation of the indivisible relativity of the Ki which is working and the I which superintends the working. Hence, it is also the expression of Being in itself. Yi-Hwang claims the reciprocal action of I and Ki, but Yul-Gok admits only the Ki's action and denies the I's action. Such a disagreement, of course, is �� 새 the difference of philosophical viewpoint between the two. Yul-Gok points out that Yi-Hwang philosophy makes some errors. For a metaphysical principle(=I) cannot be thought to be a something which is working. And besides, Yul-Gok mentions that the before-after relation of the I-Ki in respect of time and the theory of I-Ki-Yi-Won(理氣二元), in Yi-Hwang's opinions, commit a fault too.
II. Treatise of Human Nature: Yul-Gok comprehends the inner structures of Mind·Nature·Feeling·Will as the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. First of all, let's explain the 'In-Sim-Do-Sim'(人心道心)as the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. Yi-Hwang regards the In-Sim as the Ki's action and regards the Do-Sim as the I's action. However Yul-Gok illustrates the In-Sim and Do-Sim as the structure of the Ki-Bal-I-Seung. It is the Do-sim that the I rides on the inherent Ki, and it is the In-Sim that the I rides on the varied Ki. Though the source of the Sim(Mind) is the oneness, the Sim(Mind) is divided into the In-Sim and the Do-Sim according to the will that the Mind(Sim) has. And now, by Yul-Gok, the In-Sim and the Do-Sim have a variabillity mutually, not a fixity. In other words, the In-Sim can be changed into the Do-sim and the Do-Sim also can be changed into the In-Sim too. For Yul-Gok comprehends the In-sim and the Do-Sim together as the feeling which contains the will.
And besides, Yul-Gok grasps the nature as the temperamental nature(氣質之性) in which the I and the Ki are harmonized too. He insists on it that the nature to transcend the body should be not the nature but the I. Therefore, it is right to express the inherrent nature(本然之性) as the I not the nature, and so human nature is only the temperamental nature. Yul-Gok, in this way, comprehends the inherent nature within the temperamental nature. Such a nature-doctrine(性論) as Yul-Gok is different from Yi-Hwang's nature-doctrine which divides the nature into the inherent nature and the temperamental nature, and so attachs a importance to the inherent nature.
Besides, Yul-Gok mentions concretely the profound harmony-relation of the inherent I(本然之理) and the inherent Ki(本硏之氣) through the explanation of his In-Sim-Do-Sim. Though the inherent I and the inherent Ki are in the strict sense distinguished into I and Ki, it is difficult to distinguish sharply between I and Ki because both are laid in the profound harmony-relation. The both are said to be interdependent and to be influenced by each other. Especially, because he interprets the inherent Ki as 'Dam-Il-Cheong-Huh-Ji-Ki'(湛一淸虛之氣), the inherent I and the inherent Ki and the Dam-Il-Cheong-Huh-Ji-Ki are influenced by one another.
And Yul-Gok describes the inherence of the Ki as a magnanimous Spirit(浩然之氣) and mentions that the inherent I show itself perpectly through the magnanimous spirit. The magnanimous spirit, even though the Ki, because of being related to morality, is the Ki which is combined with I and Ki.
after all, as to the relation of I-Ki-Ji-Myo, the I and the Ki are different from each other and simultameously the same thing.
And besides, Yul-Gok interprets a Sa-Dan(四端) as the seven feelings and interprets also the seven feelings as the Ki-Bal-I-Seung(氣發理乘). The feeling of human being is only the seven feelings, and the good feelings of the seven feelings are the Sa-Dan. Yi-Hwang interprets the Sa-Dan as 'the I working and the Ki following'(理發而氣隨之) and the seven feelings as 'the Ki working and the I riding'(氣發而理乘之). But Yul-Gok denies Yi-Hwang's doctrine, and interprets the Sa-Dan and seven feelings as the Ki-Bal-I-Seung. For he thinks that even the Sa-Dan is worked by Ki's stimulus to an outward thing. In the end, Yul-Gok understands the Sa-Dan as something within the seven feelings and so understands that the feelings are the harmonized structure of the Ki which is working and the I which supervises the working.
III. Administration thought(經世思想); his administration thought also don't deviate from the tradition of confucianism and so is interpreted as the sturcture of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo too. The sincerity thought of the golden Mean(中庸) is emphasized here as the concept 'Sil'(實). It is the Sil that the essentiality and actuality, the name and contents, the theory and praxis have a coincidence. If the one departs from the other, it is not the Sil, i.e., not the truth. His Sil is illustrated as the structure of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo and this principle is maked concrete as his administration thought.
Besides, he emphasized the harmony of the righteousness(義) and the unility(利). and now, it can be interpreted as the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. If the righteousness is the problem of morality, the utility is the problem of economical or material value. Yul-Gok insisted on the harmony of the righteousness and the utility which discerns the truth and falsehood, the profit and loss. Such a spirit, in his political thought, is embodied as the harmony of ethics and economy. Here, because the righteousness can be said as the I and the utility can be said as the Ki, it is possible that we interpret the harmony of the righteousness and the utility as the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. In the meantime, Yul-Gok emphasizes 'a holy science'(聖學) as the goal of science, 'a holy man'(聖人) as the goal of a man, 'a great union'(大同) as the goal of a community. These have all the structure of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo. The holy science is the science that aims at a self-cultiation and a social realization, that is, the science that combines theory with praxis. The holy man is the man who aims at a self-cultivation and a social realization too. Such a man is the goal of a man, a desirable Model of a man. and, the community of the great union(大同) could be said as the social incarnation of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo in that such a community aims to the moral society and simaltaneously pursues the economical richness.
Eventually the system of Yul-Gok philosophy could be said that the I-Ki-Ji-Myo is a core. The theory of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo is not only a metaphysical principle, but also a ought principle. And, the theory is a device which can dissolve smoothly the opposition between thoughts, the two poles of Ideas, the poverty of modern philosophy. Yul-Gok philosophy admits the existence of the I and the Ki together and admits the value of the two as a interdependence.
In a word, a significance of Yul-Gok philosophy consists in the presentation of the fact that all creations within this world are the Being of the I-Ki-Ji-Myo and so human being ought to live in this way too.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• 第一章 緖言 = 1
• I. 栗谷哲學의 硏究傾向과 本 硏究의 立場 = 1
• II. 硏究의 目的과 展開方向 = 3
• III. 栗谷哲學의 根本問題와 理氣之妙 = 5
• 1. 傳統儒學의 繼承과 學的 態度 = 5
• 2. 宇宙自然을 통한 理氣의 理解와 人間中心的 傾向 = 9
• 3. 韓國儒學의 展開와 理氣之妙 = 14
• IV. 栗谷 理氣之妙의 思想的 淵源 = 19
• 1. 易理的 淵源 = 19
• 2. 宋代性理學的 淵源 = 21
• 3. 韓國性理學的 淵源 = 25
• 第二章 本論 = 29
• I. 栗谷宇宙論의 理氣之妙的 理解 = 29
• 1. 太極陰陽의 理氣之妙 = 30
• (1) 宋代性理學의 太極陰陽論 = 30
• ① 太極陰陽의 一般的 理解 = 30
• ② 無極과 太極 = 32
• ③ 太極陰陽의 先後와 太極의 動靜問題 = 34
• ④ 張橫渠의 太極 = 36
• (2) 栗谷의 太極陰陽論과 理氣之妙 = 38
• ① 太極陰陽의 一般的 理解 = 38
• ② 太極陰陽의 先後와 太極의 動靜問題 = 40
• ③ 太極과 陰陽의 理氣之妙 = 44
• 2. 理와 氣의 妙合 = 47
• (1) 理氣의 一般的 理解 = 47
• ① 程朱의 理氣觀 = 47
• ② 浪溪의 理氣觀 = 51
• ③ 栗谷의 理氣觀 = 54
• (2) 理氣의 存在論的 理解 = 60
• ① 栗谷의 理一分殊 = 61
• ② 栗谷의 氣一分殊 = 64
• ③ 理通氣局 = 65
• ④ 氣發理乘 = 68
• ⑤ 理氣之妙 = 76
• II. 栗谷人生論의 理氣之妙的 理解 = 82
• 1. 宋代性理學의 人生論 = 82
• (1) 心 ·性 ·情 ·意 = 82
• (2) 天地之性과 氣質之性 = 87
• (3) 四端七情과 人心道心 = 89
• 2. 栗谷人生論의 理氣之妙的 理解 = 91
• (1) 心 ·性 ·情 ·意의 槪念과 關係 = 91
• (2) 氣質之性 = 98
• (3) 七情(四端) = 101
• (4) 人心 ·道心 = 104
• (5) 本然之理 ·本然之氣(湛一情處之氣) ·浩然之氣 = 111
• III. 栗谷經世思想의 理氣之妙적 理解 = 119
• 1. 實 = 120
• 2. 義 ·利의 相涵 = 123
• 3. 聖學 ·聖人·大同 = 130
• 第三章 結論 = 136
• 參考文獻 = 142
• 英文抄錄 = 146