http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 박희병(Park Hee byoung) (검색결과 9 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Asami Keisai and Hong Daeyong: Dismantling the Chinese Theory of the "Civilized" and "Uncivilized"
박희병 ( Park¸ Hee-byoung ) 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2004 Seoul journal of Korean studies Vol.17 No.-
Asami Keisai, born in 1652 and died in 1711, was primarily active around the Genroku period, the golden age of the Edo period. Hong Daeyong, born in 1731 and died in 1783, was active during the reigns of King Yeongjo and King Jeongjo, when the "little China" mentality was at its height. These two figures were born almost 80 years apart. In addition, Asami Keisai was an intellectual from a military family, while Hong Daeyong was an intellectual from a literary family. Asami Keisai carried a sword with him wherever he went, while Hong Daeyong never forgot his geomun-go even when he traveled. In spite of these differences, however, the two had quite a few interesting similarities, and these similarities can be confirmed in their scholarship, their attitude toward the perception of reality, and in their thoughts on Hwairon [華夷論], i.e. the theory of "civilized" and "uncivilized." In this paper, I intend to center my argument on the attitudes of these two toward the theory of civilized and uncivilized. First, I examine Asami Keisai and Hong Daeyong, and then I compared the two. Keisai and Hong Daeyong are also very similar in that they criticized unrealistic theories and idealistic learning and placed great importance on realistic scholarship. There is no doubt that, regardless of the similarities and differences in their thoughts, Keisai and Hong Daeyong's academic tendencies contributed to their rejection of the Chinese theory of civilized and uncivilized and exploration of a new world view and a new East Asian view of order. Keisai attempted to break through the existing Chinese theory of civilized and uncivilized by placing the subjects in an absolute position and then setting them up against each other. In this case, the subject and another subject (i.e. the object) are unavoidably placed in a relationship of mutual conflict. Further, the overemphasis on one's own subject can lead to failure of the universal principles and admit yet another unequal relationship between a subject and an object. Keisai's attempt to overcome the theory of civilized and uncivilized relied on the universal principle, and so he was able to establish a new perception of the relationship between Japan and China, as was his goal, but his overemphasis on his own subject paved the way for an internal breakdown in the perception of the relationship between Japan and Korea. This is ultimately the result of emphasizing universalism and yet at the same time clinging to egocentrism. Hong Daeyong developed his thoughts in a different direction from Keisai. Hong Daeyong saw through the problematic egocentrism of all beings and the problem of the limitations of egocentric perception, and yet on a higher level he saw that those things must ultimately be sublated. In a word, Hong Daeyong affirmed all subjects from a perspective of the sublation of egocentrism, rather than through an emphasis on egocentrism, and thus he sketched out mutually equal relationships between subjects. If we look at it this way, the "subjects" in Hong Daeyong's attempts to overcome the theory of civilized and uncivilized were not mutually conflicting subjects but "relational" subjects that stood side by side within a network of relationships. In this regard, we can say that his attempt to overcome the theory of civilized and uncivilized corresponds precisely to his basic idea of the equality of humanity and the material. In other words, we can say that the application of his idea of the equality of humanity and the material to relationships between peoples or nations was his attempt to overcome the theory of civilized and uncivilized. If the current world situation allowed us to appreciate the methods adopted by Hong Daeyong, the ethnic subject established by Hong Daeyong would most likely be dubbed a "mild" or "soft" subject.
-
박희병 ( Hee Byoung Park ) 민족문학사학회 2008 민족문학사연구 Vol.38 No.-
『종북소선』(鐘北小選)은 이덕무가 박지원의 글 10편에 대해 평점(評點)을 붙인 책이다. 이 책은 아직 학계에 그리 널리 알려져 있지 않으며, 본고에서 처음 그 비평양상에 대한 본격적인 연구를 수행했다. 『종북소선』의 평점비평은, 작가와 비평가가 맺고 있는 아주 깊고 독특한 존재관련으로 인해, 비단 한국문학사만이 아니라 동아시아 문학사 전체를 통틀어 보더라도 그 존재감이 뚜렷하며, 특이한 광채를 발하고 있다. 본고에서 특히 주목한 것은, 『종북소선』이라는 텍스트 내에서 박지원과 이덕무라는 두 창조적인 지성이 보여주는 정신의 공명(共鳴)과 미적 교감의 양상이었다. 그리하여 필자는 이 논문에서, 지금까지 밝혀지지 않았던 사실인, 빼어난 산문비평가로서의 이덕무의 면모를 부각시킴과 동시에 『종북소선』에서 이덕무가 이룬 비평사적 창안과 성취가 도대체 어떻게 가능했는지를 해명하고자 하였다. 『종북소선』은 방비(旁批), 말비(末批), 미비(眉批)라는 세 종류의 비평형식을 통해 평어를 전개하고 있다. 이 중 가장 주목되는 것은 미비(眉批)라고 말할 수 있다. 『종북소선』의 미비는 그 모두가 각각 독자적인 한 편(篇)의 예술산문으로서의 면모를 보여준다. 동아시아 평점비평사에서 이런 성격의 미비는 그 유례(類例)를 찾을 수 없다. 이 점에서 이덕무는 동아시아 비평사에서 놀라운 `창안`을 이룩했다고 할 만하다. Jongbuksoseon (鐘北小選) is a book by Lee Deok-moo where he made pyeongjeom (評點, critical comments combined with circles or points marked beside the writing) on 10 writings by Park Ji-won. This book has remained little known in academia; this paper is the first to study in earnest how this pyeongjeom-based criticism was pursued. Given the close and special interrelation between the author and the critic, pyeongjeom- based criticism in Jongbuksoseon stands out clearly in the literary history of not only Korea but also East Asia as a whole. What is particularly noteworthy is that this book of criticism embodies a spiritual resonance and aesthetical rapport between the two intellectuals of extraordinary creativity, Park Ji-won and Lee Deok-moo. Thus, this paper aims at highlighting Lee Deok-moo as an outstanding critic of prose, an aspect that has not been discovered so far, and at the same time, at explaining what was behind the ground-breaking accomplishment that he made with Jongbuksoseon. Jongbuksoseon taps into three formats of criticism: bangbi (旁批, critical comments put beside the writing), malbi (末批, critical comments put at the end of the writing), and mibi (眉批, critical comments put upside the writing), with the latter of which deserving the greatest attention. In the book, each of the mibi comments serves as a single, independent artistic prose in a way that is unprecedented throughout the history of pyeongjeom-based criticism in East Asia. In this regard, it would be fair to say that Lee Deok-moo accomplished a splendid "invention" in the critical history of East Asia.
-
-
박희병 ( Park Hee Byoung ) 민족문학사학회 2017 민족문학사연구 Vol.63 No.-
이언진에 대한 재해석 위에서 그와 박지원의 관계를 재론하고 있는 김명호 교수의 최근 논문 「이언진과 「우상전」」을 자세히 들여다보면서 논쟁적 대화를 꾀하였다. 이 과정에서 필자와 논자의 입장 차이는 물론, 불가피하게도 문학연구의 방법과 지향의 차이도 드러나게 되었다고 생각된다. 논자는 필자의, 『호동거실』이 불온함과 반체제적 지향을 보여준다는 주장을 반박했지만 필자는 이를 재반박하면서 『호동거실』의 반체제성을 더욱 확장해 이해하는 시각을 취하였다. 이는 전략적으로 고전문학연구를 골동 연구로 전락시키지 않고 현재와 미래의 삶을 위한 고민과 좀 더 연결되게 하는 의의가 있다고 여긴다. 또한 이 논문에서는 기존에 필자가 제시한 `인정투쟁`의 시각을 좀 더 전면화하고 있다. This study refutes Prof. Kim Myeongho`s recent article Lee Eonjin and Usangjeon, which rebutted my previous findings and redefined Lee Eonjin`s relationship with Park Jiweon upon the reinterpretation of the former. In this study, I think not only differences between my opinion and Prof. Kim`s are made clear, but inevitably also differences in research methods and value orientation in general. As an answer to Prof. Kim`s rebuttal of my argument that Hodonggeosil shows subversive mentality and anti-establishmentarian attitudes, I here tried to offer an enhanced understanding of Hodonggeosil`s anti-establishmentarianism. I think such an attempt is crucial to make Korean classic literature study rather more relevant to current and future real-life issues than a mere interest in antiques. In addition, my argument that Hodonggeosil exemplifies `struggle for recognition` is here discussed more thoroughly.
-
-
-
-
생태와 녹색평화-사상,문학,운동 한국의 전통적 생태사상과 평화주의 홍대용의 경우
박희병 ( Hee Byoung Park ) 서울대학교 통일평화연구원 2012 통일과 평화 Vol.4 No.2
This article aims at introducing the ideas of a Korean intellectual of the 18th century, Damheon Hong Dae-yong, as part of efforts to understand the pacifist orientation of Korea`s traditional thoughts. Hong`s pacifism, based upon his unique idea of ecological ontology, clearly shows strong orientations towards equality and anti-violence. Hong argued that the subject and the other should not be regarded as being opposed to or exclusive of one another, but rather defined pacifism as an equal and horizontal relationship between the subject and the other.
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
