사람됨의 뜻 : 哲學的 人間學 = Philosophy as a Study of Man

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Knowledge about man abounds today, cultural anthropology, anatomy psychology, sociology and other allied fields of study continue to reach into their respective aspects of what man is and what he does. Paradoxical as it may seem, man is less known to himself today than at many other times in history.
The present age is variously described as one of machinery or technology, and consequently, one of dehumanization. All the same, the question which history poses to man-who he is and what his identity -remains unanswered. Man must find an answer, for without a clear idea of what he is, he cannot properly form his character, be himself as an individual distinct from his follow-man. Besides, all major spiritual movements in history, be it educational or social, philophical or religious, have based themselves on a definite view of man. If there is a question posed to philosophy of our time, it must be one of "what is man."
In the western tradition of philosophy man was presumed to possess reason, as witness his scientific name-homo sapiens. Reason was held to be what sets man above the rest of creation. By virtue of reason, it was argued, man is capable of seeking truth and regulating his behavior. It was believed that reason governed not only his thoughts and and actions but, when identified with Logos, indeed the very universe. Man as a rational being has remained more or less consistent from early Greek philosophers through the ages to Hegel.
Then came change, as it must to everything. Schopenhauer, a contemporary of Hegel's, said that man is a being with will rather than reason. His postulate had a lasting influence on subsequent thinkers; in line with him were Nietzsche and his will to power, Marx and his will to possession, Freud and his libido.
Geothe and others of the Romatic school placed a higher value on emotion in preference to reason, which they thought of as a lifeless quality given to calculating and measuring. Still later. existential thinkers too came out against reason, arguing that life is a reality, a paradox whose depths reason alone cannot fathom.
At this point we should pause to distinguish reason from perception or understanding: perception as a faculty to count and theorize; reason as a capacity for ethics or conduct. A reappraisal of reason will be valid only if we are to realize that life is common to all men and not merely sufficient unto one individual to understand life in terms of I-thou relations. This would also serve to check the irrational tendencies in contemporary thinking.
Biology shows that at birth man's bodily organs and sensorial perceptions are at a lower stage of differentiation than is the case with other animals. While young animals of mast species are born virtually ready to cope with their ecological conditions, newborn infants have to go through an extended period of development before they can adapt to environment. This seeming weakness, however, conceals the unique advantage that allows man to adjust to a much wider variety of environmental conditions. The ontogenic development of man more or less parallels his development as a being capable of conceptual thought. When animals are physically full grown they have automatically reached maturity. Man by contrast has to continue toward the fulfilment of himself. This is a process that should continue throughout his lifetime, with no guarantee that he will reach that goal by the end of his life.
Self-fulfilment of its Korean equivalent, "scram-doem(사람됨)" "being or becoming human" or "the way one is human" is what man owes to himself. What kind of human being he will grow up to be lies well within the realm of his free choice and free will. And it is in this light that Sartre's reference to man is responsible for what he is.
This is not to say that man is completely free in forming his character. Obviously this is not the case: freedom to mold his character according to his wishes apart from its being a vital freedom-is circumscribed by environment, or tradition and culture, politics and economics. In explaining cultural tradition as an essential determinant in character formation, a Korean term "이(얼)", roughly equivalent to "spirit" is chosen. This term is used to signify not only spirit which is individual and subjective, but a group spirit which holds society together, an historical spirit that gives continuity of a culture proper to a society from generation to generation.
Spirit or 얼 thus defined is a stream that flows from generation to generation: not merely something that helps establish identity for the man as a being endowed with a soul that is potentially immutable and timeless. Man attains to such a transcendental identity only through faith and being worthy of trust.
It is at once faith in the Supreme being and faith in his neighbor and reciprocally inspiring his neighbor's faith in the man himself. Such a timeless identity has to be "created" by man or "revealed" to him. To cover this meaning this Korean verb "iruk'ada(이룩하다)" is adopted.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1.문제의 성격
• 2.문제의 뜻
• 3.사람의 이성
• 4.이성의 몰락
• 5.이성의 회복
• 6.생물학적 특징
• 7.사람됨의 자유
• 8.얼과 사람됨
• 9.동일성과 믿음성