간재 전우의 경학사상 연구 : 『사서강설』을 중심으로

길태은 전북대학교 일반대학원 2020 국내박사

The purpose of this paper is to examine the ideas of Ganjae Jeon Woo(1841–1922) about the Confucian classics. Ganjae established himself after the mid-19thcentury as one of the best-known Neo-Confucian scholars in the Kiho School by leading Neo-Confucian discussions, particularly focusing on his Lecture on the Four Classics During the process of accelerated division into smaller schools that started in the early 19thcentury, various Neo-Confucian perspectives presented by scholars known to be the heads of the factions clashed and generated serious intense debates about the Li-Qi theory and aspects relevant to reality. Ganjae was active during the middle of a tumultuous period when Confucian values were weakened and national sovereignty was lost. In addition, because he led the Neo-Confucian discourse of the Kiho School, his views on Neo-Confucianism and his criticisms became the foundation for understanding the Neo-Confucian debates that flared up in the Kiho School after the mid-19thcentury. The value of the footnotes in the Four Classics to Confucian classics is important to examinations of the ideas of Confucian scholars because they not only offer basic research materials on how to understand traditional Confucianism. They also indicate the most fundamental problems during the establishment of the scholars’ arguments in their temporal context and present their worldviews based on that context. Therefore, the basis for understanding the ideological perspective of a Confucian scholar is his interpretation of the Confucian classics. In other words, examining a scholar’s attitude and interpretative perspective about the Confucian classics is an essential process for understanding his entire philosophical reasoning. Ganjae’s footnotes in the Four Classics are, in fact, interpretations of Annotations to the Four Classics by Zhu Xi. Therefore, that volume was analyzed and discussed in detail in the paper by chapter and line. This painstaking technique for analyzing footnotes has been used for the Confucian classics to examine the intentions of the authors who wrote the footnotes. Therefore, specific chapters and lines(章節) can be closely analyzed by employing the footnotes to the Confucian classics. The author identified the main elements of all the footnotes based on this, determined the order in the Neo-Confucian worldview that Ganjae focused on regarding the Confucian classics, and analyzed the classics with that focus. Therefore, this paper examines Ganjae’s ideas on the Confucian classics in the following order: (1) understanding The Great Learning centered on the self-cultivation theory, (2) understanding The Doctrine of the Mean centered on the theory of human nature, (3) understanding The Analects centered on Taoism, and (4) understanding The Book of Mencius centered on self-culture theory. The reason this order was used to examine Ganjae’s Four Classics is because it is the chronological order of Ganjae’s work and because we believe that, for Ganjae, The Great Learning and The Doctrine of the Mean contained the most fundamental values for practicing Confucianism and were the basic texts for understanding Neo-Confucianism. As a Neo-Confucian scholar, Ganjae’s ideas about the Confucian classics were closely related to Neo-Confucianism. For example, Ganjae states, “generally speaking, the Confucian classics are all centered on ‘nature’.” Thus, Ganjae used his interpretation of the Confucian classics as an authoritative foundation for establishing his Neo-Confucian systems and theories and, based on them, to criticize the divergent views of other schools. Ganjae adhered to Soodojajung(守道自靖) when faced with the actual turmoil of the late-Joseon Dynasty, and he completed the footnotes to Four Classics based on his ideology that developed in response to the historical period. In other words, we confirmed that the basis of Ganjae’s philosophical reasoning in the Four Classics was the venerate nature theory(尊性論) represented by Simbonseong(心本性) and Seongsasimje(性師心弟). Ganjae was a Taoist who used interpretations of the Confucian classics and the teachings of semiotics to base his philosophy on Simbonseong(心本性) and to later shape it through the Seongsasimje theory(性師心弟說). The significance of Ganjae’s Four Classics in Neo-Confucian ideology is summarized as follows. First, Ganjae established his interpretation of the Four Classics as a system and as his theory of Neo-Confucianism. Specifically, he endeavored to explore the books of Confucius and Mencius based on Neo-Confucianism’s perspective or by supplementing them to address their shortcomings. Therefore, Ganjae can be understood as someone who sought the true meaning of the classics through the Neo-Confucian theory by exploring a “neo-Confucian study of the Confucian classics” or through “study of the Confucian classics centered on the Four Classics.” However, the period when Ganjae was actively publishing was one of extreme turbulence caused by the encroachment of imperial powers and the loss of national sovereignty. During this time, Ganjae led the way for Taoist pedagogy that wijeongcheoksa (rejected heterodoxy and defended orthodoxy) during the late Joseon period. If that is correct, Ganjae’s studies of the Confucian classics might be a “Taoist study of Confucian classics” because it is relatively valid from the perspective of practicing integrity and Taoism with a strong scholarly spirit when faced with national crises while arguing on the Four Classics and human understanding through scholarship. We can assume that Ganjae’s Soodojajung(守道自靖) greatly influenced the national spirit and the history of the study of the Confucian classics in Korea when the perspective is taken that Korean Confucianism is still traditionally passed down.

栗谷의 人性論 硏究

길태은 성균관대학교 유학대학원 2008 국내석사

栗谷 李珥(1536-1584)는 근본적으로 人間을 固定的 존재로 보지 않고 活活潑潑하게 변화하는 人間 心性의 변화가능성을 적극적으로 긍정함으로써 道德性의 이론을 이끌어 냈다. 즉 發하는 것은 氣요 발하는 所以는 理이다. 발하는 氣와 그 氣發을 가능케 하는 理와의 묘합구조 속에서 人間의 바람직한 창조적 변화가 가능하다고 본다. 그러므로 理氣之妙의 氣發理乘一途는 聖人이 다시 나타나도 고칠 수 없는 것이라고 確信하고 있는 것이다. 또한『孟子』의 「性善論」에 입각하여 人性에 대해 긍정적 신념을 堅持한다. 율곡은 聖人과 衆人은 그 본성은 같다 하고, 비록 氣質이 맑고 濁하고 순수하고 잡박한 차이가 없을 수 없지만 진실로 능히 참되게 알고 실천하여 그 낡은 버릇을 버리고 처음의 본성을 회복한다면 털끝만큼을 보태지 않고서도 온갖 善이 다 만족하여질 것이라 하였다. 天理를 보존하고 私慾을 막는 능력은 人間에게 본래부터 주어져 있는 것이다. 따라서 중요한 것은 人間이 天理를 본래 갖추고 있다는 점이 아니라 이 본래 갖춘 천리를 스스로가 드러낼 수 있어야 한다는 것이다. 따라서 誠은 聖人의 근본이 된다 하였다. 율곡에게 있어서 인간다움이란 곧 天理인 人性을 올바르게 깨달아 실천함에 불과하다. 그러므로 學問이란 논리나 이론 그 자체로서 의미를 지니는 것이 아니라 人間생활에 어떤 當爲性을 제시할 수 있을 때 비로소 가치를 얻게 되는 것이다. 人間의 가치는 하늘로부터 주어지는 것만은 아니다. 人間의 가치는 人間 스스로가 가치를 부여하고자 할 때 비로소 주어지는 것이다. 이렇게 人間 스스로가 가치를 인정할 수 있을 때 自我實現이 이루어질 것이다. 道德性 실천을 중요시하는 율곡의 人性論은 오늘날 현대사회에 價値觀 형성과 확립에 적지 않은 시사점을 생각하게 할 것이다. Yulgok Yi Yi(1536-1584) fundamentally derived the theory of morality not from seeing man as fixed being but from affirming the active changeability of human mentality positively. Namely, what rises is spirit and the reason why it rises is principle. He saw that human desirable creative change was possible in the structure of strange unity between spirit of rising and principle of enabling spirit to rise. Thus, he was sure that a saint could not correct the mystery of principle and spirit in gibal iseung ildo(gi rises, and only one i rises over it) even if he reappeared. Also, based on Mencius' ethical doctrine that man’s inborn nature is good, he maintained affirmative belief in human nature. He said that despite the inevitable differences in temperament such as clearness and inscrutableness, purity and impurity, a saint and the people who had the same nature could satisfy all kinds of goodness adding nothing to it if they had true knowing, practiced it, dismissed the old habit and restored initial nature. Ability to preserve heavenly principle and check self-interest was originally given to man. Thus, what counts is not that man has the principle originally but that he should be able to reveal it by himself. He said, therefore, that sincerity formed the basis of a saint. To him, learning is but a means for realizing human nature as heavenly principle correctly. Thus, it is not meaningful as logic or theory itself but becomes valuable when it can present what one should do to human life. Human value is not given only from heaven. It is not given until man tries to endow him with value by himself. Man can achieve self-realization when he can acknowledge his own value by himself. Yulgok's Treatise of Human Nature which attaches importance to moral practice will make modern society think of not a few suggestions in forming and establishing values.