호락논쟁 이전 율곡학파의 미발론과 인물성동이론 = Mibal Theory (未發論) and Inmulseongdongi Theory (人物性同異論) of the Yulgok School before the Ho-rak Debate (湖洛論爭)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is an examination of how discussions on the inmulseongdongi theory (人物性同異論, dispute on the nature of man and animal) and innate human nature (未發心體) were brought up and carried out by members of the Yulgok school of thought before the Ho-rak debate (湖洛論爭). Yulgok`s thinking was focused on the theory of self cultivation in Confucianism which has the purpose of perfecting humans to a higher state. Therefore, he was less interested in whether the natures of men and animals were the same. Rather, he focused on pointing out the basic goodness of all humans through the “theory of Li-through and Ch`i-within” (理通氣局說) and explaining that all humans have the ability to do good through the “theory of shimshigl” (心是氣說). During the time of U-am(尤庵), the relationship between self cultivation and the mibal theory (未發論) was emphasized. However, U-am, like Yulgok, was not interested in the similarities or differences in the natures of animals and humans. Rather, he stressed the fact that all people aad the ability to be enlightened and that enlightenment can be brought about through the use of one`s inner abilities. However, Soo-am(遂菴) focused on the idea that reason and goodness were not the same principle. He made strict distinctions between humans and animals and good and evil people. Through this, he tried to bring up the topic of the appropriateness of the development of humans. This was when the topics of whether the naturis of humans and animals are the same and whether innate human nature is good or evil was first seriously brought up. Due to these problems, Nong-am(農巖) changed his outlook. While he had supported the idea that the personalities of children are different, he began to assert that 1) based on the fact that all things are instilled with the laws of nature. Humans` personalities cannot be said to be different when looked at from the perspective of nature, and 2) good and evil in human nature are the same since the goodness of nature is the same in all people. These views were developed into the idea of original human nature from the “Rak” theory. The theories of “Ho” and “Rak” are the same in that they both support Yulgok`s idea of self cultivation. However, the views of Hohak and the views of Yulgok and U-am are different in that Hohak suggests that humans must development themselves because they are fundamentally different from each other and Yulgok and U-am emphasize the innate goodness all humans receive at birth.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 문석윤, "호락논쟁의 형성과 전개" 동과 서 2006

2 금장태, "조선후기의 유학사상" 서울대학교출판부 1998

3 김인규, "조선 후기 노론 학맥의 분화와 그 세계관 − 18세기 호락학파의 형성과 현실인식을 중심으로 −" (사)율곡학회 22 : 187-222, 2011

4 김낙진, "정시한과 외암 이식의 체용론과 인물성논의" 1994

5 한국사상사연구회, "자료와 해설 한국의 철학사상" 예문서원 2001

6 한국사상사연구회, "인성물성론" 한길사 1994

7 이이, "율곡전서"

8 이선열, "송시열과 우암학단의 심론 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2010

9 이선열, "송시열과 박상현의 미발 논변: 미발과 기질의 관계 문제를 중심으로" 철학사상연구소 (36) : 211-244, 2010

10 이봉규, "성리학에서 미발의 철학적 문제와 17세기 기호학파의 견해"

11 "성리대전"

12 곽신환, "봉암 채지홍의 인물성론" 1994

13 김창협, "농암집"

14 이천승, "농암 김창협의 인성물성론"

15 김용헌, "농암 김창협의 인물성론과 낙학" 1994

16 김태년, "기원 어유봉의 인물성론" 1994

17 황윤석, "頤齋亂藁"

18 田愚, "艮齋私稿"

19 홍직필, "梅山集"

20 朱時烈, "朱子大全"

21 윤봉구, "屛溪集"

22 안은수, "尤庵 心性論의 특징과 의의 -未發論을 중심으로-" 한국동서철학회 (48) : 135-154, 2008

23 서동일, "『頤齋亂藁』에 나타난 조선후기 호락논쟁" 20 : 2002

24 조성산, "18세기 호락논쟁과 노론 사상계의 분화"