김환태 비평 연구

오형엽 ( Oh Hyung-yup ) 한국언어문화학회(구 한양어문학회) 2012 한국언어문화 Vol.0 No.49

The purpose of this writing is saying about special quality that is hidden by examining closely Kim, Whan-Tae`s literary criticism. This writing wishes to examine concretely four article that is critic`s adoption process, writer`s creation process, critic`s creation process, organic model for this. First, viewpoint of critic`s adoption process is criticism view focusing on work adoption process of reader or critic, and correspond to text theory and utility theory by critical pattern. Kim, Whan-Tae defines literary criticism as "effort of human mind to look at target as it is actually to acquire artistic sense and sensuous effect of literary work". This definition shows text theory and utility theory were combined delicately by critical pattern. To assert consecutively position that support the literary purity and individuality about literary essence problem is point and basis proposition of Kim, Whan-Tae`s literary criticism. Kim, Whan-Tae declares that is an oneself impressionist, and define criticism as "the reconfiguration experience who unifies and synthesizes most effectively according to hint direction and emotion and impression attaching by work". Also, he regards that appreciation can achieve way that acquire objectivity and universality "by thorough in subjectivity". Second, viewpoint of writer`s creation process is criticism pipe focusing on writer`s process of work production, and correspond to expression theory by critical type. The viewpoint of Kim, Whan-Tae`s literary criticism is involved strictly with romantic literature view that correspond to literature view of intellectualism, and it show viewpoint which serious consideration of emotion than intelligence, representation than technology, and serious consideration of life and personality with human without separating poetry and poet. According to Kim, Whan-Tae, "the art is inner representation that appear in necessary request of inside of self", that is "concreteness of emotion". He states above little more this express this as "integrity of language that transmit experience". This position show sense of balance that serious consideration of emotion·personality·life·experience former language expression at the same time serious consideration of its verbalism experience, Kim, Whan-Tae refers to this dimension "perfect agreement of consciousness and form". Third, viewpoint of critic`s creation process is criticism view focusing on critic`s process of criticism production, and correspond to expression theory by critical type. Kim, Whan-Tae connects dimension of critical text theory with dimension of critical utility theory, this dimension of critical utility theory goes forward to general reader in addition to critic. This show that he is thinking about critic`s role considering comprehensively work creation process and work adoption process that is spreaded in order of `writer-work-critic-general reader`. The viewpoint of text theory and utility theory in Kim, Whan-Tae`s literary criticism wears form of creative criticism theory being spreaded in viewpoint of critic`s expression theory. Kim, Whan-Tae emphasizes literature critic`s role as creative artist by emphasizing critic`s self-expression and suffering of creation. Fourth, Kim, Whan-Tae`s literary criticism synthesizes presenting organic model continuously in process of development that state viewpoint of text theory, viewpoint of utility theory, viewpoint of expression theory. Organic model is caused for reason that figure out art by organic body that being is. Kim, Whan-Tae presents organic model that regard nature of life as emotion as criticize literature of naturalism and psychologism at the same time. He presents life, totality, emotion, imagination action as core concept of organic model from here. Because Kim, Whan-Tae is based on this organic model, he understands art as organic body that get bound up contents and form together. He divides "thought and actuality as matter" and thought and actuality of work furthermore, and when it is "fused in writer`s imagination and emotion", the latter forms for the first time, and he insists that thought and actuality of work equivalent to contents naturally hereby in conjunction with form "flow outward as a perfection organic body".

현대문학비평과 논증의 수사학

오형엽 ( Hyung Yup Oh ) 민족어문학회 2007 어문논집 Vol.- No.56

이 글은 문학연구 및 비평을 심층적으로 진행할 수 있는 기초를 마련하기 위해 ``현대문학비평``과 ``논증의 수사학``의 관련성을 고찰한다. 최근 새롭게 전개되고 있는 신수사학 중 ``논증의 수사학``이 보여주는 성과를 검토하고, 이를 참조할 때 얻을 수 있는 문학비평의 새로운 가능성을 모색하고자 한다. 이 글은 이러한 목적에 접근하기 위한 기초 작업으로서, 우선 수사학의 역사적 전개과정을 개괄하면서 문제를 제기한 후, ``논증의 수사학``에 해당하는 현대 수사학의 성과 중 그 출발점에 있는 카임 페렐만과 스티브 툴민의 논증 이론을 검토하고, 이들의 성과를 비판적으로 계승하고 종합적으로 재구성한 제임스 크로스화이트의 메타철학적 논증행위 이론을 고찰하고자 한다. 그리고 이러한 논증의 수사학과 관련성을 가지는 현대문학비평의 구체적 성과를 검토하기 위해 김인환의 문학비평을 살펴보려 한다. 카임 페렐만은 청중의 중요성, 논증적 상호 작용에서의 전제와 합의의 기본 특성, 논증에 표지를 세우는 공론과 같은 요소들을 강조한다는 점에서, 논증 이론 및 담화 분석에 핵심적인 틀을 제공한다. 청중을 고려하는 논증행위를 통해 차이를 존중하면서 합의에 이르는 의사소통의 가능성을 열어놓음으로써, 현대철학과 수사학이 도외시하는 사회적 비평을 가능케 하는 것이다. 수사학의 측면에서 페렐만의 논증 이론은 ``청자`` 중심의 ``의사소통 이론``이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 관점은 은유·환유·제유라는 ``표현``의 측면으로 축소되어온 수사학의 관심을 ``화자-표현-청자(청중)``이라는 의사소통의 관계망으로 확장하고, 그 맥락을 검토하면서 논증행위의 윤리적 측면까지 고려한다는 점에서 주목을 요한다. 스티브 툴민은 논증이 사용되는 구체적인 맥락에 주목함으로써 형식논리학의 불충분함을 비판하고자 한다. 그는 논증의 복합적인 성격을 고려하기 위해 ``영역(field)`` 개념을 도입하고, 양태적 용어들이 실천적 논증의 과정에서 수행하는 실질적 기능이 무엇인지 명백하게 제시하려 한다. 그리고 논증 과정에서 발생하는 명제들의 기능을 밝히고, 그 논증에 대항하는 비판들에게 어떻게 적절한 논증을 제시하고 분석하는지를 규명한다. 수사학의 측면에서 툴민의 논증 이론은 ``화자`` 중심의 ``화용론적 언어학``이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 관점은 언술의 구체적인 맥락과 실제로 작동하는 방식에 주목함으로써, 주장과 근거, 근거에 대한 이유와 이유에 대한 지지, 자격과 반박 등의 정당화 절차에 대해 구체적으로 검증한다는 점에서 주목할 필요가 있다. 제임스 크로스화이트는 페렐만의 ``청자`` 중심의 ``의사소통 이론``과 비트겐슈타인?오스틴?스티브 툴민 등의 ``화자`` 중심의 ``화용론적 언어학``을 종합적으로 수용하면서 논증행위 이론을 재구성한다. ``주장하기``와 ``질문하기``, ``갈등``과 ``청중``을 중심으로 재구성한 논증행위의 이론은 차이와 갈등을 이용하여 탐구를 수행하고 사회적 합의에 도달하려 한다. 그리하여 이성의 수사학은 차이로부터 발생하는 갈등을 비폭력적으로 해결하는 가능성을 강화하고, 공준이 무너지고 있는 사회적?문화적 현실 속에서 사회비평의 가능성을 옹호하며, 고등교육의 목적에 대한 신뢰할 만한 설명을 제시한다. 김인환은 수사학과 관련된 의사소통 이론 및 화용론적 언어학을 문학연구 및 비평에 접목시켜 독자적인 관점을 창안한다. 그의 문학 This paper investigates relativity of ``contemporary literary criticism`` and ``rhetoric of argument`` to ready footing that can progress literature study and criticism deeply. After coming into question summarizing historic unfolding process of rhetoric, this paper wish to investigate Cham Perelman and Stephen Toulmin`s theory that at the starting point among ``rhetoric of argument`` result of modern rhetoric. And this paper wish to investigate James Crosswhite`s meta-philosophical argumentation theory, and investigate Kim In-Hwan`s literary criticism to examine specific result of contemporary literary criticism that have relativity with rhetoric of argument. Cham Perelman offers central model on argument theory at point that emphasize audience, argumental interaction, public opinion. By have opened possibility of communication that arrive at mutual agreement respecting difference through argumentation that consider audience, his theory enable social criticism. Cham Perelman`s argument theory can be regarded as ``communication theory`` of the centering around ``audience`` in side of rhetoric. Stephen Toulmin criticizes insufficiency of formal logic giving attention to concrete context that argument is used. He introduces ``field`` concept, and tris to actual function of conditional terminologies. And he clears function of propositions that happen in argument process, examines how to presenting and analyzing suitable argument to critiques that opposes to the argument. Toulmin`s argument theory can be regarded as ``speech-act linguistics`` of the centering around ``speaker`` in side of rhetoric. James Crosswhite reconstructs argumentation theory that accommodating Perelman``s ``communication theory`` of the centering around ``audience`` and Wittgenstein?Austin?Stephen Toulmin``s ``speech-act linguistics`` of the centering around ``speaker`` synthetically. Argumentation theory that have reconstructed in the centering of ``claiming`` ``questioning`` ``conflict`` ``audience`` tries to achieve investigation using difference and conflict, tries to reach in social agreement. Kim In-Hwan invents an original viewpoint that communication theory and speech-act linguistics connected with rhetoric being grafted together in literary study and criticism. His literary criticism secures viewpoint of ``synthetic rhetoric`` that combine ``rhetoric of figure`` and ``rhetoric of argument`` mutually, and examine closely literary principle applied to both writing and criticism. Kim In-Hwan`s viewpoint that investigates method of novel correlating grammar category, the linguistic internal regulation with description viewpoint imply the part of ``speech-act linguistics`` and ``rhetoric of communication``. Kim In-Hwan``s method of reading that emphasize simultaneously ``reading of details`` and ``reading of context`` has inner relation with ``communication theory`` and ``speech-act linguistics`` and ``meta- philosophical rhetoric`` in the point of giving attention to context and intertextuality. If we continue to study refering to these investigation, we may suspect following scientifical and critical contribution. First, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` can seek mutual complement with literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of figure``. Second, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` can think the ethicality and sociality as well as esthetics of text. Third, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` supplies important suggestive point to approach in new problem area that contemporary literary criticism is facing. Fourth, We can secure new angle of literature education utilizing literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` to methodology of literature education.

이론비평'을 통한 비평이론 교육

강우성(Woosung Kang) 한국영미문학교육학회 2013 영미문학교육 Vol.17 No.3

This paper purports to present practical teaching models and curriculum of literary theory at a graduate level in Korea by examining the theoretical and pedagogical implications of what might be termed "Theory Criticism" in several academic journals in Anglophone culture for the past 10 years. Critically analysing the recent trends of theory studies, especially during the period after the so-called "the Death of Theory," I argue that journals devoted to theory demonstrated the significant change in doing theory in terms of thinking possibilities of political potentiality and cultural diversification of theory itself. Among various journals, Diacritics, Critical Inquiry, and Parallax are chosen for their consistent commitment to the theoretical discussion in the field of literary studies. Theoretical concerns of these journals after 2005 can best be classified under three categories: increasing political interest, continued devotion to cultural or aesthetic phenomena, and the renewed reflection on what makes a theory a theory. Current shifts in theory studies mark a crucial challenge to our literary theory education in Korea, where classroom situation now suffers a dire lack of the discipline in critical thinking amidst relative proliferation of critical discourse outside the academia. One way to overcome such an indigence of theoretical education in Korea may come from the lesson of recent political turn of theory in Anglophone studies. It is urgent as well as necessary to positively adopt the pedagogy of theory criticism while maintaining the text-based close reading in dealing with theoretical texts. For this task, I present three teaching models practically applicable in literary theory education in Korea: seminar on theory criticism, theoretical encounter with literary texts, and thematic approach to theory. As the case of actual teaching experience based on the thematic approach indicates, literary theory education via "theory criticism" proved not only viable but practicable as well. The aim of teaching literary theory should be geared to enhance none other than the faculty of critical thinking itself.

문학이론 교육의 한국적 수업모형 연구

강우성(Woosung Kang) 한국비평이론학회 2013 비평과이론 Vol.18 No.1

This essay attempts to suggest viable teaching models of literary theory education in Korea by exploring the theoretical as well as practical implications of "Theory Studies" in Korea for the past 15 years. Investigating the peculiar trend of theoretical interests in two prominent critical theory journals, Contemporary Criticism and Theory and Criticism and Theory, we discovered that Korean scholars of theory have preferred Lacanian psychoanalysis and Post-colonialism over the other theoretical positions. Unlike Anglophone academic journals whose 30-year index demonstrated the tendency of slow decline in theoretical studies, Korean journals show continued research interest in the so-called "Theory Criticism." In Korea, the 1990s witnessed a sort of upsurge of theoretical engagement and investment in contemporary "French" theories after the collapse of the stronghold of Marxist theory. The status of theory in Korea appears to have been stable and steady: pure theoretical researches and "theory criticisms" are getting popular, though classroom situation remains deplorable. In order to overcome the predilection for certain theories and enhance the theoretical literacy in literary education, it is urgently required to set up some basic principles of theory education. Combining the diachronic analysis with synchronic confrontation as the standard way of doing theories, this essay suggests two teaching models of theory education in Korea. One is for "history of theory"; the other for "theoretical overdeterrnination." While identifying relevant theoretical moments in literary and aesthetic texts, teachers help students confront "reflective moments" of vanous theoretical texts in their critical reflection. The success of theory education in Korea will depend upon developing such a theory-conscious reflection in the classroom through the practice of theory criticism.

번역자행위비평 이론연구

요위위,이흠명 택민국학연구원 2023 국학연구론총 Vol.- No.32

The theory of translator behavior criticism was proposed by Professor Zhou Lingshun and holds an important position both domestically and internationally. In this regard, this article conducts research from three aspects: theoretical development and relationship diagram, scope of application, and theoretical characteristics, introducing the theory of translator behavior criticism to promote the development of translation theory in China and South Korea. Firstly, the development stage of translator behavior criticism theory can be divided into two stages. Under the influence of cultural turn, factors outside of translation gradually occupy an important position. This has promoted the emergence of the theory of translator behavior criticism. The second stage is the theoretical development stage. The process of developing and improving the theory of translator behavior criticism after a certain period of time. In the concept proposed by Zhou Lingshun, the ‘Truth-seeking-Utility-at-taining’ Continuum, as an important component, plays an important role in the theory of translator behavior criticism. Truth-seeking and Utility-at-taining are also evaluation criteria in translation and are widely used in translation activities. At present, the theory of translator behavior criticism is applied in many fields. For example, based on theoretical research, translation practice, content, and language usage, it varies. In addition, the theory of translator behavior criticism has distinct characteristics in determining the development stage of translation criticism and promoting theoretical development.

‘포스트’이론과 문학교육

여홍상 한국영미문학교육학회 2012 영미문학교육 Vol.16 No.3

This study aims at investigating a dialogic relationship between literary theory and literary education in the age of so-called “post”-theories in the ambiguous and controversial sense of the prefix ‘post’ both as after-theory and beyond-theory. The premise of this paper is that even though we are witnessing the proliferation and dominance of ‘theory’ in the current milieu of literary studies, it would be neither appropriate nor advisable simply to try to apply the extrinsic schema of theory to the interpretation of literary texts in the actual situation of the class. Instead, this paper argues that students’ “critical” competence in the sense of Paolo Freire’s “critical pedagogy” may be more naturally produced in the immanent process of closely reading the literary texts on the students’ own part rather than from a mechanical and reductive application of extrinsic ‘theories’ to the reading of the text. To illustrate this point, several examples of literary works across various literary genres are discussed and analyzed closely, along with some suggestions of practical pedagogic strategies involved in reading and teaching the specific texts. In particular, Susan Glaspell’s The Trifles for drama, E. B. Browning’s “The Cry of the Children” for poetry, and Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness for the novel are discussed in detail, as representative works of each genre. However, in our attempt to recuperate the ‘critical’ position suggested in the literary text, we should be cautious not to naively reproduce the “authorial ideology” in the text but to read “against the grain” of the text when necessary. In connection to the ‘critical’ reading of literary texts, even in the courses focusing on ‘theory,’ the teacher should not forget that the ultimate goal of studying a theory lies in providing a ‘critical’ perspective necessary for the actual reading of a literary text, not in learning theory for theory’s own sake. In this respect, many theory textbooks do their best to give rich examples of how to read actual literary texts in a critical perspective of a certain theory. It is often the case that many ‘theoretical’ works in fact rely on practical reading of particular literary texts or apply various kinds of literary strategies for their own theoretical or philosophical discourses. Beyond the literariness of theoretical discourses, some literary works may involve a self-reflective ‘theory’ concerning the aesthetic nature of literary texts, and the teacher may organize a literature course around the self-reflective mode of selective texts to explore the theoretical ramifications embedded in the literary work itself. The conclusion suggests that ‘critical’ competence of the students in literature classes may be enhanced not by a simple reductive application of the theory to the text but by a close and immanent reading of the literary work itself which presumably embodies a certain critical perspective to “make you see” the world in a different way. These essential ‘critical’ strategies in reading literary texts may extend to the broadened area of “cultural studies” in what we might call the age of post-literature, which is characterized by the proliferation of various kinds of non-literary cultual texts.

사회비판이론(critical social theory)으로서의 하버마스의 비판이론(critical theory)

조영아(Jo, Youngah) 중앙대학교 중앙철학연구소 2014 철학탐구 Vol.36 No.-

사회비판이론(critical social theory)이 사회의 병리현상을 경험적으로 해명하는 것에만 치중한다면 극단적인 상대주의에 빠지게 될 것이다. 반면에 사회비판이론이 사회의 병리를 극복하기 위한 보편적인 규범 제시에만 치중한다면 역사와 무관한 보편주의 이론으로 전락할 것이다. 따라서 사회비판이론은 상대주의의 극단과 초역사적인 보편주의를 피하기 위해서 경험적 해명의 성격과 규범적 성격을 동시에 지녀야 한다. 이러한 사회비판이론의 성격을 염두에 두고, 본 논문에서는 하버마스(Jurgen Habermas)의 비판이론(critical theory)이 사회비판이론의 자격을 가질 수 있는지를 고려하고자 한다. 이를 위해 우선 캘훈(Craig Calhoun)이 제안한 사회비판이론의 조건을 설명하고, 이어서 하버마스의 비판이론이 무엇인지를 다룰 것이다. 그런 다음 하버마스의 비판이론에 대한 캘훈의 비판을 검토하고, 그런 비판에 관해 하버마스 비판이론의 관점에서 어떤 식으로 대응할 수 있는지를 살펴볼 것이다. 이를 근거로 하버마스의 비판이론이 사회비판이론일 수 있음을 주장할 것이다. If critical social theory gives impotance to the empirical explications of pathological phenomena of societies, it will become the radical relativism. On the other hand, if the theory gives weight to the alternative of the universal norms, it will degenerate into an ahistoric universalism. Thus, in order to avoid the radical relativism and ahistoric universalism, critical social theory should have the momentum both of empirical explication and normative alternative. Having this requirement for the critical social theory in mind, this paper will discuss whether Habermas’ critical theory can be critical social theory. For this purpose, first, the condition of critical social theory by Calhoun will be suggested. Next, I will provide an explanation of what is Habermas’ critical theory. And then, I will argue that Calhoun’s criticism of Habermas’ critical theory can be responded from Habermas’ point of view. On the basis of these arguments, I will conclude that Habermas’ critical theory can be critical social theory.

수용미학을 바탕으로 한 인상주의적 미술비평의초등교육적 함의

이미정 한국초등미술교육학회 2015 미술교육연구논총 Vol.40 No.-

Art criticism, despite professional and intellectual activities covering a widerange of art criticism horizon, There are arguments for elementary schoolstudents were careful to whether that art criticism among scholars. Butteaching and learning theories have been extended. The expansion is stillunknown who is going to be a much effective way theories are actually in school. The purpose of this study was to development of the Impressionistic artcriticism model based on Reception theory in elementary school and toevaluate whether an elementary education has significance. Which impliesthe acceptance impressionistic art criticism as an expansion of horizons, andthe Reception theory as the basis are as follows: First, the criticism as analternative type of interactive art criticism. Second, the impressionistic artcriticism model based on the Reception theory(IRM)can be achieved progressivelymore positive complementary relationship. However, despite the practical nature of the study of teaching and learningfor the field IRM is still faced with a defect in the aesthetic limitations ofimpressionistic art criticism and Reception theory. It also required a deepartistic knowledge and qualifications for teachers requires a lot of effort tothe teacher. Nevertheless, the impressionistic art criticism that the audience's consciousness , understanding, perspective, spirits of the audience wasmainly based on Reception theory is expected that the effective method of forlearning the processing of art criticism. 2009 개정교육과정의 미술교육의 내용 영역으로 미술비평은 미술사와 함께 감상 영역의 핵심으로 자리매김 하였다. 이러한 흐름에 발맞춘 미술비평의 교수 학습 관련 이론들은 이미 많은 반성적 연구로 이론적 발전을 거듭하고 있다. 미술비평이 전문적이고 광범위한 지평을 아우르는 지적 활동이라는 점에 있어서 초등학생에게 미술비평은가능한가라는 조심스러운 논지들이 있었으나 이를 무색하게 만들며 확장되어 가는 이론들이 실제로 현장에서 얼마나 효과적일 수 있는가는 아직 미지수이다. 이에 본 연구는 초등학교에서 아동의 발달 수준과 성취기준에 충실한 수용미학을 바탕으로 한 인상주의적 미술비평 모델을 구안해 봄으로써 교육학적 실천이 가능한 미술비평 모델이 갖는 초등교육적 함의를 찾아보고자 하였다. 수용자의 의식, 이해, 입장, 견해 등을 중시하는 수용미학을 바탕으로 한 관람자 중심의 주정주의적이고 개성적인 인상주의적 비평 방법은 초등학교 현장에서 아동의 흥미를 바탕으로 효과적인 미술비평과정을 학습하는 데 보다 실효성 있는 교수 학습 방안이 될 것으로 기대된다.

발터 벤야민의 문예이론 고찰 : 아이러니와 알레고리를 중심으로

오형엽(Oh Hyung-yup) 韓國批評文學會 2009 批評文學 Vol.- No.33

This writing investigated his literary art theory laying stress on ‘irony’ and ‘allegory’ concept from the point of literary theory’s proposition and practical aspect as one method that approach in Benjamin’s thought constellation. This writing examined special quality of ‘German romanticism criticism’ ‘criticism of art’ on the viewpoint of literary theory proposition, and examined special quality of ‘art philosophy criticism’ ‘condition and function of allegory’ on the viewpoint of literary practical critic. Special quality of Benjamin’s ‘german romanticism criticism’ is formed laying stress on ‘reflection’ ‘form’ ‘irony’ concept. ‘Criticism of art’ is “action that recognize target who fill within reflection intermediate”. Benjamin says “theory of romanticism for work of art says by a single word theory of the form”. As Benjamin states above Schlegel’s irony concept, he thinks that formal irony destroys particular form of work of art, but relative oneness of individual work is bumped with relative oneness of universal work, and form connection. Benjamin describes special quality of ‘criticism of art’ laying stress on ‘idea’ ‘concept’ ‘phenomenon’ ‘source’ concept. Intermediation that divides ‘phenomenon’ and participates in genuine oneness of ‘truth’ is ‘concept’. ‘Idea’ takes constellation circumstances that ‘phenomenons’ is arranged by particular way. Special quality of ‘source’ mean that recognize peculiar historic phenomenon that creates and disappears together with the warrior and successor Benjamin’s ‘art philosophy criticism’ is formed laying stress on concept of ‘sovereignty theory’ ‘comment and criticism’ ‘melancholy’. About ‘sovereignty theory’, Benjamin regards that God’s violence is requested, in order to come genuine exception condition in current striping life that exception condition and ordinary state are undistinguishable. Benjamin’s critical viewpoint is that we can reach contents ‘criticism’ of ‘truth contents’ through ‘comment’ of ‘fact contents’. Concept that mediate character’s inside and mind historical tendency in age is ‘melancholy’. Benjamin describes about ‘fall’ ‘antinomy’ ‘gap’ ‘fragments’ as ‘condition of allegory’. Monarch’s ‘fall’ expresses falling natural history death through emblem of skeleton in baroque tragedy, and express human’s original history since original sin furthermore. A imagination of totality disappears, and allegory that have ambivalence contains ‘antinomy’. ‘Inconsistency of shape and meaning’ is deformed by ‘gap of character and sound’ ‘gap of speech and article’, and is involved ‘fragments of language’ as baroque tragedy’s allegory structure. Benjamin describes about ‘magic’ ‘modification’ ‘reversal’ as ‘function of allegory’. Benjamin refers to ‘restoration of ancient remnants’ ‘relativity with Gods’ as strong motif of allegory. Important element of this is ‘magic nature’ and that it have ‘diagram of modification’. From function of ‘reversal’ of ‘magic modification’, we can thick that ‘allegory’ is representation form that Schlegel’s formal irony Benjamin investigated in German early romanticism theory is extended of baroque age’s historic?spiritual layer.

경량부 종자설에 대한 중현과 무착의 비판, 그리고 세친의 딜레마

권오민 ( Kwon Oh-min ) 인도철학회 2017 印度哲學 Vol.0 No.49

본고에서는 『구사론』 상에 논설된 세친의 종자설과 관련하여 당시 경량부, 설일체유부, 유가행파의 대표 논사였던 상좌 슈리라타와 중현과 무착의 관계를 조망해보려고 하였다. 중현의 비판을 통해 볼 때, 세친의 종자설은 경량부의 상좌(上座)(Sthavira) 슈리라타(Srilata)의 수계(隨界)설과 밀접한 관련이 있다. 그것은 상좌설에 기초한 세친 자신의 이해라고 할만하다. 중현은 이들의 종자/수계설을 대체로 두 가지 점에서 비판한다. (1) 종자(能熏)가 소훈처(所熏處)인 마음(所熏)과 별도의 실체가 아니라면 단일한 마음에 종류(種類)가 다른 다수의 법성(法性)(공능 즉 종자)이 공존하여 선심에서도 불선이, 무루심에서도 번뇌(유루)가 생겨난다고 해야 하며, (2) 양자가 동시존재가 아니라면 전법(前法)(능훈(能熏))이 존재할 때 후법(後法)(소훈(所熏))은 아직 생겨나지 않았고 후법이 생겨났을 때 전법은 이미 소멸하였기 때문에 相應(화합)이 불가능하다. 이에 의하는 한 종자설을 주장하려면 최소한 (1) 종자(혹은 종자 소훈처)는 현행식(6識)과 다른 별도의 실체로서, (2) 이와 동시에 존재해야 한다는 두 조건을 충족하지 않으면 안 된다. 유가행파의 `알라야식`은 바로 이를 충족한 개념이었다. 이에 따라 무착 역시 상좌(경량부)의 종자상속설을 중현과 동일한 논리로써 비판할 수 있었다. 세친은 중현을 천애(天愛)(devanam priya) 즉 `어리석은 이`로 호칭하며 경량부의 종자상속설을 지극히 당연한 이치라고 변호하였지만, 그 또한 대승유가행파로 전향함에 따라 과거 자신이 선설(善說)로 천명하였던 경량부 종자설 을 중현과 동일한 논리로써 비판하지 않으면 안 되었다. 이는 세친 개인으로서는 아이러니였고 딜레마였을 것이다. 그러나 추측컨대 그의 아이러니는 지적 편력에 따른 필연적인 것으로, `이장위종(理長爲宗)`이라는 그에 대한 후대의 평가도 이에 따른 수사(修辭)였을지 모르겠다. This thesis surveyed the relationship between Sthavira Srilata, Samghabhadra and Asanga who was the known master of Sautrantika, Sarvastivada, and Yogacara respectively in regards to the Vasubandhu`s theory of seeds(bija) argued in Abhidharmakosabhasya. Seen through Samghabhadra`s criticism, Vasubandhu`s theory of seeds is in a close relation with the theory of `previous accompanied-elements( purvanudhatu)` by Sautrantika`s Sthavira Srilata. It seems like that is a Vasubandhu`s own understanding based on the Sthavira`s theory. Samghabhadra criticize their theory of seeds and `previous accompanied-elements` roughly in two ways. (1) If the seeds are not separate beings with consciousness which is the basis(asraya) of seeds, it should be said that un-good mind(不善心) can emerge from good mind(善心) because there are an immeasurable number of seeds of good, evil and etc. in a unity. (2) If both are not together at the same time, a mutual relationship(sambandha) is impossible. According to Samghabhadra`s criticism, to argue the theory of seeds, following two conditions have to satisfy at least. That (1) seeds (or the basis of seeds) have to exist as separate beings to current six consciousness, (2) but also have to exist simultaneously. The concept `alayavijnana` suggested by Yogacara satisfied these conditions. So Asanga could also criticized Sthavira`s theory of the serial continuity( samtati) of seeds in the same logic with Samghabhadra`s. Vasubandhu defended Sautrantika`s theory of the serial continuity of seeds as a very common sense, while calling Samghabhadra as `a fool(devanam priya)`. However, as he himself converted to Mahayana Yogacara, he had to criticize the Sautrantika`s theory of seeds, which he declared before as the best opinion, in the same logic with Samghabhadra`s. To Vasubandhu, this would be an irony and dilemma personally. Though at a guess, following his intellectual journey, his irony was inevitable and the later criticism calling him as li chang wei zong(理長爲宗, i.e. taking the best theory as his own regardless of whom it came from) may also be the rhetoric which to explain that.