중국의 미술대학 : 浙江美術大學 編

尹明老 서울대학교 미술대학 1992 造形 FORM Vol.- No.15

Aristoteles에 있어서의 ‘分析論後書’의 位置와 論證思想

尹明老 東國大學校 1967 論文集 Vol.3-4 No.-

I have here attempted to settle to position of the Posterior Analytics within the so-called Organon of Aristotle, especially to fix the order of writing of the Prior and Posterior Analytics, and to clarify the thought of demonstration represented in it. It is, now a well-known fact that the Proior and Posterior Analytics are the most essential works within the Organon. But seeing the fact that, whenever he has occasion to mention either Analytics, Aristotle himself refers to it simply under the title of "Ta Analytika", we are obliged to thick that the distinction between the Prior and Posterior must have been made by some later editor or commentator of Aristotle's logical works. If, thus, the division into Prior and Posterior can not be ascribed to Aristotle himself, is may be doubted with reason whether the two works were written really in such order as the present names indicate to us. The traditional view about this question is, of course, that the Prior is the earlier than the Posterior. Examining the opinions of some famous scholars about this question, I have found that Maier and Gohlke agreed with the traditional view, and that Solmsen objected to it by showing considerable grounds of his argument. But Ross has refuted Solmsen's view strictly and in detail rebutting his grounds of argument one by one. As for me, even without Ross' strict refutation against Solmsen, I cannot help agreeing with the traditional view, for is seems to me unreasonable that such a great genius as Aristotle should have investigated the method of demonstration using the syllogistic method (in the Posterior Analytics), before he had established the formal method of syllogism (in Prior Analytics). In the Posterior Analytics Aristotle investigated the method of acquiring scientific knowledge, by means of which we congnize the relation not only between propositions but also between things themselves, whereas the Prior Analytics was merely concerned with the conditions, under which we can derive a conclusion with necessity out of certain premises. In this sense the Posterior Analytics may be called epistemological logic, or as Ross called it, "materical logic". It is indisputable that every scientific investigation should be advanced by means of scientific reasoning, i.e. demonstration. Because we have, according to Aristotle, scientific knowledge of a certain fact, only when we know "that the cause from which the fact results is the cause of the very fact", and "that the fact cannot be otherwise than it is." In this sense Aristotle was right in saying: "Demonstration is a kind of syllogism which brings about scientific knowledge." From such a characteristic of the demonstrative reasoning, we can see that the primary or ultimate premise in each science should be absolutely true. The main problems which I have treated in this treatise are, therefore, these: 1. What kind of fact or proposition can be the primary premise?― The answer is that it is what is prior "in nature" or "in itself." 2. How can we get such a primary premise?― The answer is that we can get it through the method of induction and ultimately through the inductive leap by "Nous". 3. What kind of form of demonstration is the most desirable?― The answer is that the most ideal is the first figure of syllogistic form.

山水畵의 現代的 表現方法에 關한 小考

尹明老 서울대학교 미술대학 1981 造形 FORM Vol.- No.4

夏目漱石의 諧謔 : 吾輩で猫ある를 中心으로 In Wagahaiwa Nekodearu(I'm a Cat)

尹明老 慶尙大學校 1981 論文集 Vol.20 No.2

Wagahaiwanekodearu(I,m a Cat) was published serially in the Magazine of Hototogis from January, 1905 to August, 1906. The author, Natsume Sooseki, had been teaching the theory of literature and the literary criticism at Tokyo University. In the Mean time he had been anxious for creative writing and had very little interest in the teaching. And as the result, he was afflicted with the nervous breakdown. At that time, he had been persuaded by Takahama Kyoshi, who had edited the Magazine of Hototogis, to contribute a literary work. That article made him suddenly one of the most popular writers, until then he was a nameless writer, so this piece of writing became the momental work in the history of his literary career. But for the I'm a Cat, we might say that the writer might not have been born of such great reputation. And the work is still one of the bestsellers in Japan. Wagahaisanekodearu is, through the eyes of cat, to observe and criticize the incidents which occur to the masted, his family, and those around him. It criticize human society and it is full of humour and satire. There would have been no freshness if Sooseki had pursued only the rerival of Yedo taste. But he had also the wit of European literature, and the sense of Social criticism. It seems that the cat as an alter ago or a spokesman of Soosiki does not concentrate or deposit the interval unpleasantness tenseness impatience etc.. but diffuse the wisdom of unconscious self-defence. This reserch is intended to analyze the methods of description of this novel, and dig out the relations between the author and the characters. and to know the humours of Sooseki.

著者名基本記入과 書名基本記入의 比較硏究

尹明老 충남대학교 문과대학 문헌정보학과 문헌정보학회 1984 圖書館.情報學論集 Vol.1 No.-

韓國佛敎思想의 展開過程에서 나타난 融和精神 Vol.11 No.2

尹明老 서울大學校 人文科學硏究所 1983 人文論叢 Vol.11 No.-

A variety of sectarian Buddhist doctrines were introduced from China during the period of Three Kingdoms. Hence, numerous monks and scholars tried a formidable task of compromising those conflicting Buddhist doctrines and at the same time compromising Buddhism and Confucianism. In order to explain the ideosyncretic phenomen on of Korean Buddhist tendency to compromise or harmonize doctrinal disputes, I here propose a thesis that such a compromising attitude of many Korean scholars and monks is but an outward expression of their inner disposition of reconciling or harmonizing various conflicting doctrines. It seems a truism to say that, from the commonsensical point of view, our intellect is unable to accept logical contradiction and thus the resulting mental discord forces us to devise some means of compromising contradictory assertions at any cost so that the mental discord should be resolved. However, my thesis does not refer to the above intellectual necessity by which we cannot accept logical contradiction or inconsistency. What my thesis bespeaks is that underneath the unique Korean Buddhist tendency of syncretic harmonization of compromising various doctrinal disputes including Confucian doctrines, there lies a more fundamental or pre-logical disposition, not a mere logical necessity. By pre-logical disposition I mean a deeper or wider concept such as life-culture which frames our mode of living. For example, we can point out that Korean people are apt to adopt foreign modes of fashions in such a way that nobody looks strange when one dons a traditional Korean overcoat turumagi while wearing a Western leather shoes and a Western soft hat.

종이 죽을 利用한 作品 制作

尹明老 서울대학교 미술대학 1988 造形 FORM Vol.- No.11

夏目漱石의 「こころ」에 관하여

尹明老 한국일본학회 1983 日本學報 Vol.11 No.-

日本文学の素材 : 自然を中心にして

尹明老 한국일본문화학회 1999 日本文化學報 Vol.7 No.-

타케다 타이쥰(武田泰灐)論 -『架橋(架を築く)』를 中心으로-

윤명노 한국외국어대학교 일본연구소 1997 日本硏究 Vol.11 No.-

日本現代作家武田泰淳はその正?がつかめないと言うのが定評になっている。それは彼が生涯、作品を通じて多元論を定着させた?ではなかろうか。彼が追求した文?思想は矛盾、人間?の原罪意識、滅亡論、傍?者的態度、?沌、自己告?など、彼の生い立ちと??または生得的なものにより形成されたが、文?者としての素材の必要からも追求した面もある。本考は「橋を築く」を分析することにより武田の文?用念の解明を試みた。登場人物は母親、僧侶、長男、次男である。母親と僧侶はそれぞれが社?的規範に反き欲望へかられて行く。常識もあり、わが子も愛し、自分がやっていることが?いのも知っていても、理性は弱〈、自分の心をControl出?ない母親の心?ち人間の心を描いている。母を滅lます原因なる魔性は母を救う妙?と言う矛盾を描く。僧は?の?に命を捨てる?悟をした一人の男であり又聖職者にあるまじき淫?僧と言う矛盾を演出する。長男は母の女としての性欲まで理解してやった?の孝子者でありながら母を性欲に溺れさせ無?な橋まで築く愚かな者として登場する。次男は兄の行動に不平を鳴らしながらも結局は傍?者的な態度に止まる。作者武田は世界宇宙はドロドロした矛盾をはらんだままに、最終的には矛盾のままに調和がとれているのを描こうとしたのではなかろか。「橋を築く」のエピログは中???にちなむ橋である。「橋」の意味は西洋における?用性と東洋における精神性が??する。特に日本にお阿る橋は?橋という意味が?い。人間が生きて行く上で求めずにはいられない何かの象?て?ある。分裂していた社?ギ義者武聞と僧侶武出との聞に橋を築き、再構成するのが作家武田の??日である。