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 : 유원기 (검색결과 61 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF MIBAL 未發 IN THE HORAK DEBATE
유원기 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2017 Acta Koreana Vol.20 No.1
The eighteenth-century Neo-Confucian scholars in Korea were deeply concerned with two questions, namely, whether human nature and non-human nature are the same or not and whether all human nature is the same or not. In answering the second question, they focused on the moral nature of mibalsimche 未發心體 by asking whether the state of the mind or mind-substance before the arousal of feelings (or thoughts) is morally good or not. As noted, in Neo-Confucianism the unaroused state of feelings chŏng情 is generally identified with a state of nature sŏng性 which is pure and clear, and which is therefore characterized as morally good. However, Korean Neo-Confucian scholars noticed that this characterization could be controversial since the account of the unaroused state given by the Chinese Neo-Confucian, Zhu Xi, was not clear enough, but ambiguous. The problem of mibal was a matter of interest since the Four-Seven Debate in the sixteenth century in Korea, and it once again became the subject of intense contention in the eighteenth-century debate between Yi Kan and Han Wŏn-jin, who endeavored to reveal the exact moral characteristics of human nature in terms of the qualities of human constituents, i.e. li and ki. In what follows, I shall begin by examining Zhu Xi’s diverse accounts of mibal, show the emergence of the problem of mibal in the Four-Seven Debate between Yi Hwang and Yi I, and, finally, discuss the moral nature in the state of mibal presented by Yi Kan and Han Wŏn-jin.
-
유원기 대동철학회 2020 大同哲學 Vol.93 No.-
"한국사상은 철학인가?" 라는 물음은 오랜 물음이지만 아직 명확히 답변되지 않은 물음 이다. 이 논문은 서양철학을 기준으로 다양한 국가의 사상이 철학인가를 평가하려는 시도는 부적절하며, 동양철학이나 서양철학이 아닌 철학 일반, 즉 보편철학 또는 세계철학의 기준 을 마련하고 그에 따라 다양한 사상이 그 기준에 부합하는가를 평가해야 한다고 주장한다. 이와 관련하여, 2장은 먼저 "중국철학의 적절성" 문제가 제기되는 배경과 중국 학계의 대응을 살피고, 서양철학을 하나의 기준으로 제시하는 것이 부적절하다는 점을 지적한다. 그런 뒤에 3장은 한국사상의 발전 과정과 연구 동향을 비판적으로 고찰하고, 보편철학을 진리 추구의 학문으로 규정할 때 한국사상이 보편철학으로 포함되기 위해 개선되어야 할 몇 가지 조건을 제안한다. The question whether Korean Thought is philosophy? is a question which is old, but which has not been clearly answered. This paper claims that the attempt to evaluate whether the thoughts of various countries are philosophy or not on the basis of the characteristics of Western philosophy is inappropriate and that they must be evaluated in terms of the standards of philosophy in general, i.e. Universal Philosophy or World Philosophy. Chapter 2 examines the reason for the arousal of the problem of the legitimacy of Chinese philosophy and the reaction of Chinese Academics, and goes on to point out that it is inappropriate to regard the characteristics of Western philosophy as a standard of evaluating Chinese thought as a philosophy. Chapter 3 critically considers the process of the development of Korean thought and its research methodology, and suggests a number of conditions for it s improvement in order for it to be regarded as Universal philosophy which is defined as the study of pursuing truth.
-
A Research Methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism
유원기 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2013 Acta Koreana Vol.16 No.1
This article suggests a new research methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism. In order to do this, we need first to be clear about the nature of Korean Neo-Confucianism in relation to the question of whether it can be legitimately called philosophy in the Western sense of the term. In this article, I shall focus on the following questions: (1) Is there such a thing as world or universal philosophy? (2) Can Korean Neo-Confucianism be considered to be world philosophy? (3) What is the reason for the Western rejection of non-Western thought as philosophy? And (4) what conditions are required for Korean Neo-Confucianism to remain as a science which is understandable to the ordinary man of reason?I offer a negative answer to (1) for the reason that there is no consensus on the definition of philosophy itself. And if there is no such philosophy, we do not have to be concerned with (2). In relation to (3), I examine Defoort who blames the rejection of the existence or legitimacy of Chinese philosophy on Western chauvinism or ethnocentrism. Unlike Defoort, I consider that the rejection is rather due to Western indifference to, or ignorance of, East Asian traditions of thought. The main contention here is that, although there is no such thing as world philosophy, contemporary Korean Neo-Confucian scholars still need to satisfy a number of basic conditions to make Korean Neo-Confucianism a science worthy of discussion in the future. In answer to (4), I here suggest consistency, validity, and conceptual clarity as such conditions. They are in general called logical elements since they are most commonly found in Western books on logic, but they are in effect “commonsensical” in that they are basic elements required in everyday conversation. It is hoped that the conditions should not be taken as a repetition of a controversy over the definition of philosophy, but simply as a “commonsensical” suggestion to write various traditions of thought in a “commonsensical” way.
-
-
-
-
-
-
유원기 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2012 Korea Journal Vol.52 No.2
The Four-Seven Debate was an attempt to explain human feelings in terms of their ontological basis. In this article, I intend to offer a better understanding of the debate by analyzing some of the conceptions that play a significant role in it. I choose this method for three reasons: this line of approach to the debate has been very rare though not completely new; the conclusion derived by such an approach has been inaccurate and indecisive; and the philosophical connotation of the word “bal 發” (fa in Chinese pronunciation) has not been well recognized. In what follows, I begin with analyzing and examining the three candidates for the meaning of the word “bal” in the context of the six Propositions introduced in the Four-Seven Debate concerning the relationship between the Four-Seven and i-gi (li-qi in Chinese pronunciation). In consequence, I arrive at the conclusion that there is no universal translation of bal that fits all the Propositions and also that Gobong’s final Proposition concerning the aforesaid relationship returns the Four-Seven Debate to the starting point.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
