호락논변의 연구 성과와 전망

김승영 영남퇴계학연구원 2020 퇴계학논집 Vol.- No.26

This thesis deals with achievements of Horak Debate and predicts the future of the task. Aggressively, it can be summed up in three key issues for Horak Debate. First, ‘Debate on Human Nature’, whether human nature and animal nature are the same or different, and the question of what is the essential of human mind. Second, ‘Debate on Mibalsimchesunseonron’, whether human has good and evil at the same time. Lastly, ‘Seongbeomshimdongie’, what is the essential difference in the minds of saint and commoner. Analyzing on the issue of ‘Inmulseongdongie’, it is meaningful that the exploration of human nature has been set as a major theme. In depth analysis of human nature leads to study achievements. It shows the possibility of understanding argument type as studying with ‘benxin’ and ‘temper’, ‘individual’ and ‘others’. The study of good and evil defines it as the difference between the belief of pure sorority and the belief of pan-moralism. These studies have found what theoretical association is related with the system of Mibal. Based on overall existing studies, Horak Debate has been accumulated to study a lot since 2000. It disproves that not only increasing the quantities of study, but also improving the qualities of it. Many researchers develop their own logic to get to the core of argument and detail oriented. While the previous majority study had comprehensive views of argument, the following study is expected that more precise expanded to the details. Besides these expectations, there is issue of originality or identity that an essential exploration of argumentation. 이 글은 호락논변의 연구 성과를 조명하고 앞으로 과제를 전망하는데 목적이 있다. 호락논변의 핵심적인 쟁점을 거칠게 말해서 세 가지로 압축할 수 있는데, 첫째로 인간의 본성과 동물의 본성이 같은가 다른가라는 ‘인물성동이논변’, 인간 마음의 본질은 무엇인가라는 질문, 곧 사람의 마음에 선과 악이 동시에 있는가를 따지는 ‘미발심체유선악논변’, 그리고 성인과 범인의 마음에 있어서 본질적 차이가 무엇인가라는 ‘성범심동이논변’으로 정리할 수 있다. 인물성동이 문제에 관한 연구를 분석해보면, 인간본성에 대한 탐구를 논변의 주요 주제로 설정하여 탐색하였다는데 의의를 가진다. 인간의 본성을 심층적으로 분석하여 연구 성과를 도출하고 있다. ‘본심’과 ‘기질’, ‘개인’과 ‘타자’ 등으로 대비시켜 연구한 것이 논변의 성격을 파악할 수 있다. 미발시 선악의 문제에 관한 연구는 순수도덕주의의 신념과 법도덕주의 신념의 차이로 규정하기도 한다. 이러한 연구는 미발논변의 체계와 이론적으로 어떤 연관성을 가지는가를 밝혔다고 볼 수 있다. 기존 연구들을 종합해볼 때, 호락논변에 대한 연구가 2000년 이후에 많이 축적되어가고 있다. 그만큼 연구의 양이 증가했을 뿐만 아니라 연구의 질도 향상되었다는 것을 반증한다. 많은 연구자들이 논변의 핵심을 파악하기 위해 나름의 논리를 계발하고 논지를 전개하는데 있어서도 치밀함을 보여주고 있다. 기존의 연구가 논변의 포괄적인 조망이 다수였다면, 앞으로 연구는 논변의 쟁점에 대한 세밀한 부분까지 확대되어 정밀한 연구들이 나올 것으로 기대된다.

기정진(奇正鎭)의 「납량사의(納凉私議)」를 둘러싼 기호학계(畿湖學界)의 논쟁(論爭)

朴鶴來 ( Park Hakrae ) 한국유교학회 2010 유교사상문화연구 Vol.39 No.-

18세기 이래 湖洛論爭은 주자학에 대한 포괄적인 이해와 정치 사회적 입장을 반영하며 기호학계의 생산적인 논의를 이끌어냈다. 하지만 19세기에 접어들어 호락논변은 정치사회적 상황과 맞물리면서 先代 學說에 대한 교조적인 계승과 상대에 대한 부정으로 이어졌다. 이러한 가운데 일부 학자들에 의해 이 논쟁에 대한 반성과 대안 모색이 이루어졌고, 奇正鎭의 「納凉私議」는 이러한 결실 중의 하나이다. 湖論과 洛論에 대한 비판적 지양을 통해 호락논쟁 및 주자학의 학문적 본령을 수립하고자 했던 기정진의 호락논변에 대한 논의는 20세기 초반 그의 문집 重刊과 더불어 기호학계의 논란대상이 되었고, 특히 田愚에 의해 집중적으로 비판이 제기되어 기호학계 전반으로 논쟁이 파급되었다. 본고에서는 20세기 초반에 진행된 기정진의 「납량사의」를 둘러싼 기호학계의 논쟁을 19세기 이후의 호락논쟁의 추이와 결부하여 그 논쟁의 내용과 성격을 고찰하였다. 논쟁을 처음으로 제기한 전우의 논의와 이에 대한 기정진 문인들의 반비판을 중심으로 주요 논쟁점을 검토하였고, 논쟁을 통해 최대 쟁점으로 부각된 현상 세계의 차별성에 대한 논의를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 아울러 이 논쟁에 대한 당시 기호학계의 입장 및 태도에 유의하여 20세기 초반 호락논변에 대한 각 학파들의 호락논변에 대한 지형변화도 試論的으로 분석하고자 하였다. Since 18th century, 'Horak debate(湖洛論爭)' had enabled the comprehensive understanding on neo-confucianism and had reflected social and political situations, and had induced productive debates of Kiho school. However, in 19th century, dogmatic inheritance of predecessors scholastic arguments and negation of other scholastic sects became prevailed in conjunction with the socio-political situation. In this circumstances, some scholars tried to reflect on this situation and to find out alternatives. Ki jung jin's 'Napryangsaeui(納凉私議)' was one of the fruit of these efforts. Ki Jung-jin's 'Horak debate', which was tried to establish original nature of Horak dispute and neo-confucianism, became a contested topic of Kiho school by republishing his anthology in the early 20th century. In this article, the author examined the contents and characteristics of the Kiho school's debates on Ki Jung-jin's 'Napryangsaeui' , which was published in the early 20th century, in relation to the transition of Horak debate since 19th century. It was examined that the arguments of Jun-woo's, who firstly criticised 'Napryangsaeui', and Ki Jung-Jin's disciples, who counter-criticised Jun-woo's criticism. And especially the different characteristics of phenomenon world, which was the main debate topic, was investigated in priority. Moreover, by paying attention to the Kiho school's standpoints and attitudes on the debate, this author analysed the changes of the academic views on Horak debate of each schools by way of trial.

한주 이진상의 미발설

이종우 열상고전연구회 2016 열상고전연구 Vol.49 No.-

中庸 의 未發은 朱子에 이르러 수양론으로까지 전개되었고, 湖洛논쟁에 이르러 선악여부에 대한 논쟁으로 전개되었다. 그 후 寒洲 李震相은 심의 미발을 리의 靜이라고 주장하면서 호락논쟁의 당사자들이 그것을 氣의 靜이라고 여겼다고 하여 비판하였다. 또한 한주는 그 상태가 바로 지각이 어둡지 않으며 사려가 아직 싹트지 않은 상태라고 말한다. 그것은 주자가 『중용』의 미발을 思慮未萌과 知覺不昧라고 해석한 것에 영향을 받은 것이다. 그는 心卽理이므로 미발상태에서 순선하고 그것은 성인 뿐만 아니라 범인도 모두 그러한 상태가 있다고 말한다. 하지만 주자는 성인과 범인이 모두 미발상태가 있다 말하기도 하고, 성인만 있다고 말하기도 한다. 이에 한주는 전자를 주자만년정설, 후자를 초기미정설이라고 해석한다. 그러나 주자는 성인과 범인에게 미발이 있는지 없는지에 대한 관심은 없었고 오히려 미발시 공부를 강조하였다. 훗날 호락논쟁에서 南塘과 巍巖이 성인과 범인의 미발시 선악여부에 대하여 논쟁을 벌였고, 한주가 그 영향을 받았기 때문에 그렇게 해석하였던 것이다. 한주가 미발을 순선하다고 말한 것은 호락논쟁의 巍巖과 상통하지만 전자는 리의 정, 후자는 기의 정이라고 여긴 것이 그와 다른 점이다. 한주는 未發 상태에서의 공부에서 戒懼를 강조하였을 뿐만 아니라 已發 상태에서의 공부에서도 그것을 강조하였다. 하지만 退溪는 계구를 미발 상태에서의 공부에 국한시켰고, 반면에 한주는 이발 상태에서의 공부까지 확장시켰던 것이다. Before Aroused of Mind is written in the Doctrine of the Mean, one of the Four Books. After that, Zhu Xi developed to theory of self-cultivation. After that, Horak debate between Neo-Confucian scholars of Joseon Dynasty developed whether pure good or, good and bad. Finally, Hanju Yi Jinsang argue quiet of li on Before Aroused of Mind and critique quiet of ki in Horak debate. He supposes that Before Aroused means quiet of li and ki immobile. This is perception dark, he say, and is influenced Zhu Xi, annotation on Before Aroused in the Doctrine of Mean. But Zhu interpret as perception dark and considering didn't arise about it. Hanju emphasize the perception because this is basis which mind is li. That is, the perception is basis which mind govern nature and feelings, and governing means li. Consequently, Before Aroused has pure good, both sage and person. But Zhu says they have Before Aroused or only sage has it. At the case, Hanju interpret resonable argument of Zhu on the former and not resonable argument him on the latter. But Zhu has not interest about it, meanwhile he has interest about the cultivation. After that, Oiam and Namdang, Horak debate, have interest about it. Thus, Hanju is influenced them. Hanju emphasizes cautiousness and apprehensiveness when mind has Before Aroused and After Interacts. But Toegye emphasizes cautiousness and apprehensiveness when mind has only Before Aroused. Consequently, Hanju extend Toegye's it.

蘆沙 奇正鎭의 人性物性論 - ­ 理分圓融에 기초한 湖洛 兩論의 비판적 지양 ­-

박학래 동양고전학회 2019 東洋古典硏究 Vol.0 No.74

This study systematically examines the academic position of 19th-century Kiho scholar Ki Jeongjin(pen name: Nosa, 1798~1879) on the Horak Debate. One of the six major neo-Confucian scholars in Korea, Ki devoted profound academic attention to the Horak Debate from his mid-forties until his death. He attempted to resolve the problems of the debate that were primarily caused by the successors of the Ho-ron(Chungcheong Theory) and Nak-ron(Seoul Theory) scholars, and aimed to establish the theoretical foundation of reality correspondence measures. In order to investigate Ki’s discussion of human nature and the nature of things, this study reviews the works of the Kiho School of the 19th century with a focus on the problems of the Horak Debate, which emerged with the successors of the Ho-ron and Nak-ron scholars. This paper also explores the efforts of numerous scholars to overcome those problems. It determines that Ki’s discussion of human nature and the nature of things was a part of a conscious effort to recover the original characteristics of the doctrines of Chu-tzu. Through a systematic analysis of Ki’s discussion of human nature and the nature of things, which was developed based on the characteristic understanding of li(理: principle)-centered liyifenshu(理一分殊), this paper confirms that the discussion was about the integration of li(理) and fen(分). In addition, Ki’s criticism of the Ho-ron and Nak-ron’s discussions of human nature and the nature of things is also summarized and analyzed. Through an exploration of Ki’s discussion of human nature and the nature of things, it is concluded that Ki’s contributions were significant in that they explored the original academic characteristics of the doctrines of Chu-tzu from a new angle and added to academic efforts to sublate confrontation and conflict in the Kiho School. It is also determined that Ki’s discussion established a theoretical system that was able to overcome the difficulties of the times by strengthening the neo-Confucian critical mind.

관봉 현상벽의 인물성동이론 연구 - 『맹자』 「생지위성장」과 『중용』 ‘솔성지위도’ 해석을 중심으로 -

배제성 ( Bae Je Seong ) (사)율곡연구원 2021 율곡학연구 Vol.46 No.-

본 논문은 관봉 현상벽의 인물성동이론을 살펴보고 그 특징을 규명하였다. 호락논쟁의 대표적 논자로 널리 알려진 한원진과 이간은 사실 호학에 소속된 동문들이며, 그들의 토론이 가진 두드러진 특징 중 하나는 여러 동문들이 함께 토론에 참여하였다는 점이다. 그 중에서도 현상벽은 자주 이간과 나란히 언급되는 중요한 참여자이다. 현상벽의 주장을 살펴봄으로써 논쟁의 양상이나 쟁점의 함의에 대해 더 풍부한 이해를 얻을 수 있다. 특히 인물성동이론의 대표적인 전거로 꼽히는 『맹자』 「생지위성장」과 『중용』 「수장」(특히 ‘솔성지위도’)에 대한 해석에 주목함으로써 현상벽의 기여를 효과적으로 파악할 수 있다. 현상벽은 두 전거에 대한 해석에서 철저히 동론의 원론적인 입장을 견지하였다. 구체적으로 「생지위성장」 해석에서 그는 당초 한원진의 해석에 동조했던 이간보다 빨리 동론의 입장을 수립하고 이를 통해 이간의 견해 형성에 영향을 미쳤다. 한편 ‘솔성지위도’ 해석에 있어서 현상벽은 이간과의 견해 차이를 좁히지 못했다. 이간이 이 문제에 있어서 한원진의 문제제기를 일정 부분 수용하는 주장을 제시한 반면, 현상벽은 철저히 본 연지성의 절대적 보편성을 강조하는 동론의 입장을 고수하였기 때문이다. 이러한 검토를 통해 본 논문에서는 논쟁에서 현상벽의 역할을 포착할 수 있었을 뿐만 아니라, 이들의 논쟁이 제기되는 문제에 대응하는 역동적인 상호토론의 과정이었음도 확인할 수 있었다. This paper aimed to review Hyeon Sangbyeok’s Theory of Human and Animal Nature and understand the features of his stance. Han Wonjin and Yi Gan, widely known as representative speakers of Horak debate in Joseon, in fact were colleagues belonging to Kwan Sangha’s school. Another colleagues also participated in the debate. Among them, Hyeon Sangbyeok often mentioned side by side with Yi Gan was one of the main participants in the debate. So we can grasp the feature and the implication of the debate by reviewing his claims. Particularly, we focused on the interpretation of 『Mencius』 and 『Doctrine of the Mean』, because his discussion of the interpretation effectively shows his contribution in the debate. In the interpretation, Hyeon Sangbyeok horoughly maintained a position emphasizing the absolute sameness and universality of nature. More specifically, in the interpretation of 『Mencius』, he established arguments for the group that insists on the sameness of nature faster than Yi Gan and influenced the formation of Yi Gan’s view. On the other hand, in the interpretation of 『Doctrine of the Mean』, Hyeon Sangbyeok objected to Yi Gan’s view. While Hyeon Sangbyeok strongly adhered to the claim of sameness of nature, Yi Gan considered some of Han Wonjins claims receptively. Through this review and analysis, we were able to grasp Hyeon Sangbyeok’s contribution in the debate in detail. In addition to this, It was also confirmed that it was a dynamic process of mutual discussion in response to the issues raised.

정조의 俗學 비판과 正學論

김호(Kim Ho) 한국사연구회 2007 한국사연구 Vol.139 No.-

The Ho-Rak debate, which continued among Joseon scholars and philosophers during the 18th century's latter half period, was basically a political philosophy debate. Through that debate, the people involved tried to determine the relationship between the ‘Innate nature’(本然之性, the very basis of morality), and the ‘Nature presented with particular qualities’(氣質之性, the result of the ‘Innate nature’ manifested in reality). At the time, King Jeongjo was deeply concerned of the literary styles of the time, and he was also frustrated with the incoming Western culture. Such phenomena were indeed representing bigger changes happening inside the people's mind, as the people began to question the basic premise of the most primary thesis of Neo-Confucianism, the so-called ‘Seong-jeuk-Ri(Human Nature represents the Nature or the Truth)’ theory. A new, post-Neo Confucianism-style of thinking, which argued that a moral foundation was not an inherent portion inside the human heart, was being introduced to the people. Linked with Buddhism, Yangming's theory(teachings of Wang Yangming) and Taoism of the Lao-tzu and others, this kind of thinking was indeed neutralizing and weakening the existing values which had been sustaining the entire social order. King Jeongjo, who was sort of the guardian of that existing social order, could not tolerate this kind of changes. King Jeongjo had no other choice but to inhibit such knowledge and understanding which encouraged people to have relative views upon values and indulge themselves in futile questioning of everything. He tried to form an ultimate moral basis, by conceptually found it on the human hearts' good nature. Also, King Jeongjo considered himself as a solid center of moral, which could direct people in a midst of chaos in terms of values. We can see such consideration from the title he used to refer to himself, “Mancheon Myeongweol Juin-ong(An old man like a bright moon shining rivers and streams everywhere)”. King Jeongjo theorized that the King was the foundation of moral, and referred to himself as the King-Master. His arguments and his perception of the situation was based upon his deep understanding of the complementary relationship between ‘the ultimate nature’ and the ‘nature with particular qualities’. King Jeongjo's philosophy came to suggest an ultimate concept regarding the role of the King, the so-called ‘Geuk/極(Zenith)’ [Hwanggeuk/皇極(Royal Acme]. The essence of King Jeongjo's political philosophy was his determination to care for all his subjects without discriminating any of them, just like the North star, which was believed to be leading all the nearby stars. Yet such determination could always deteriorate into a certain level of dogmatism as well.

호론(湖論)의 학풍과 정치사회적 의미

장승구 충남대학교 유학연구소 2023 儒學硏究 Vol.64 No.-

The Confucian studies of Joseon entered a new stage of development through the Horak debates in the Giho academic circle. Horon and Nakron could establish their philosophical and theoretical stances more clearly through these debates. Horon was founded by Hansujae Kwon Sangha with the theory of Yi-Gi (理氣) philosophy of Yulgok and the Chunchuuiri (春秋義理) spirit of Wooam and more developed by the disputes of Gangmunpalhaksa, and its theoretical structure was completed by Namdang Han Wonjin. The academic traditions of Horon focuses on the Confucian legitimism of Dao, stresses moral righteousness and has strong Chunchuuiri spirit. They share the philosophy of Jik (直) and shows the characteristics of enhancing the value of distinguishment. Horon developed a lively philosophical and ideological debates, and based on those debates, they produced many books such as Juja Eonron Dongygo (朱子言論同異攷) that showed the high academic level of Neo-Confucian studies of Joseon. It can be evaluated as a great achievement academically that they produced rich academic results through their studies of Neo-Confucianism. However, they did not want the growth of other academics than Neo-Confucianism as out-of-boundary of New-Confucianism and heretical and suppressed them. According to Namdang Han Wonjin, a representative figure of Horon, the nature of humans and animals is not the same. And the barbarians exist between humans and animals. Just as the nature of man and animals is not the same, so is the nature of man and the barbarians. Because the barbarians are close to animals. Therefore, the legitimacy of the country and history that the barbarians founded cannot be accepted. The Chunchuuiri view of history of Namdang is likely to make it difficult to open-mindedly and interact with the Qing. Horon thinks only its position is politically true, and tends to reject Soron, which is a counter political faction, as a party of inferior people of Nansinjeokja. They rejected the theory of Tangpyeong, refused political coexistence, and held the one-party self-righteous belief that only their political faction had the right fidelity. The Chunchuuiri thought of Horon, which is hostile to the barbarians, is the ideological background and basis for the Wijeongcheoksa theory of the Hwaseo academic circle in the late period of Joseon. Horon was respected as an ideological source who actively advocated Wijeongcheoksa theory as the Western civilization penetrated into Joseon society. 기호학파 내부에서 전개된 호락논쟁을 통해서 조선유학은 새로운 발전의 단계에진입하였다. 호론과 낙론은 이 논쟁을 통해 자신들의 철학적 사상적 입장을 더욱 분명하게 정립할 수 있었다. 호론은 율곡의 이기철학과 우암의 춘추의리정신을 연원으로 하여 한수재 권상하에 의해서 창시되었으며, 강문팔학사들의 논쟁에 의해 더욱 크게 발전하였고, 남당 한원진에 의해서 이론적으로 완성된 체계를 형성하였다. 호론의 학풍은 도통론을 중시하고, 절의를 강조하고 강렬한 춘추의리 정신을 지녔으며, 직(直)사상을 공유하며, 분별의 가치를 높이는 특징을 보여준다. 호론에서는 활발한 철학적 사상적 토론을 전개하였고, 그 토론을 기반으로 주자언론동이고(朱子言論同異攷)와 같은 조선성리학의 높은 학문적 수준을 보여주는많은 저술을 하였다. 호론에서 주자학 연구를 통해서 학문적으로 풍부한 성과를 낸것은 학술적으로 큰 업적으로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 주자학 이외의 다른 학문 즉탈주자학적 새로운 학문 경향을 이단시하고 억압하여 새로운 학문의 성장을 저해한것은 바람직하지 못하였다. 호론의 사상을 대표하는 남당 한원진에 따르면 사람과 동물의 본성은 같지 않고, 이적은 인간과 금수의 중간에 위치한다. 사람과 금수의 본성이 같을 수 없듯이 사람과 이적의 본성도 같을 수가 없다. 왜냐하면 이적은 금수에 가까운 사람이기 때문이다. 따라서 이적이 세운 나라와 역사에 대해서는 정통성을 인정할 수 없다. 남당의춘추의리적 역사관은 청에 대한 개방적 태도와 교류를 어렵게 할 가능성이 높다. 호론은 정치적으로 오직 노론의 입장만이 진리라고 여기고 상대 정파인 소론에 대해서는 난신적자의 소인의 당으로 배척하는 경향이 있다. 탕평론을 거부하고 정치적공존을 배척하고 자신의 정파만 올바른 의리를 가지고 있다는 일당독선의 신념을가지고 있었다. 이적을 적대시하는 호론의 춘추의리 사상은 한말 화서학파 위정척사론의 사상적배경과 근거가 된다. 호론은 역사적으로 한말 서세동점과 함께 서구문물이 들어오면서 존화양이의 이념적 연장선에서 위정척사론을 적극 주장하는 사람들에게 사상적 근원으로서 존중되었다.

임녹문과 맹자

이장희 한국철학사연구회 2022 한국 철학논집 Vol.- No.73

In exploring the prominent late Joseon Confucian scholar, Nokmun Im Seongju (1711-1788), one unavoidably comes across the fact that the ‘sheng zhi wei sheng’ chapter in the Mencius had a decisive influence on Nokmun. In the debate over the sameness or difference between 'human nature' and ‘the nature of things,’ which was the hottest philosophical issue in the mid-to-late Joseon Dynasty, Nokmun originally agreed with the position of his teacher, Doam Lee Jae (1680-1746), that human nature and the natures of things are the same. The aforementioned chapter in the Mencius changed Nogmun’s mind. Given the general understanding of the chapter that Mencius try to emphasize the aspect of human nature distinct from the nature of things, Nogmun’s change of position in the Horak Debate can be easily understood. This paper aims to show that Nokmun's reading of the ‘sheng zhi wei sheng’ chapter did not merely bring about a shift from Nakron to Horon, but played a pivotal role in establishing the structure of Nokmun's monistic Neo-Confucianism. More precisely, I would like to say that Mencius's philosophy provide the basis for the development of Nokmun’s philosophy. The fact that a Confucian cannon such as the Mencius influence a Confucian scholar’s philosophical thinking may sound like tautology. However, seen from a different angle, it also means that Mencius's philosophy can be interpreted very closely to the ki-centered monistic philosophy advocated by Nokmun. Nokmun seems to have had the idea that the problem caused by the clash between the dualistic structure of Zhuxi’s philosophy and ‘monistic’ Chinese traditional worldview could be solved by returning to the monistic structure via the Mencian philosophy. This paper will examine how such an attempt appears to solve the problem of Horak Debate. 녹문 임성주(鹿門 任聖周, 1711-1788)의 사상을 연구하면 누구나 녹문에게 맹자 에서의 「생지위성장」(生之謂性章)이 결정적인 영향을 끼쳤다는 기록과 마주하게 된다. 조선 중후기 성리학계의 뜨거운 이슈였던 ‘인물성동이(人物性同異)’ 논쟁에서 녹문은 스승인 도암 이재(陶庵 李縡, 1680-1746)의 ‘인물성동론(人物性同論)’의 입장에 동조하다가 이 ‘생지위성장’으로 말미암아 ‘인물성이론(人物性異論)’의 입장으로 바꾸었다는 것인데, ‘생지위성장’에서 맹자가 강조한 내용을 인성과 물성과의 차별성으로 이해하는 일반적인 독법을 생각하더라도 이러한 녹문의 입장 변화는 쉽게 이해될 수 있다. 이 논문은 녹문의 「생지위성장」 독해가 단순히 낙론에서 호론으로의 입장 전향만을 가져온 것이 아니라 녹문의 기일원론적 성리학의 구조를 성립시키는 데 결정적 역할을 했을 것이라고 주장하고자 한다. 더 정확히는 「생지위성장」을 비롯해서 「부동심장(不動心章)」 등, 맹자의 철학이 녹문 사상의 근거이자 전환점을 마련했다고 말하고자 하는 것이다. 맹자 와 같은 유학의 경전이 유학자의 사상에 영향을 미쳤다는 점은 동어반복과 같은 말로 들릴 수도 있다. 하지만 잠시 관점을 달리 하면 맹자의 철학이 녹문이 구축하고 있는 기일원론에 매우 가깝게 해석될 여지가 있다는 말이기도 하다. 주자학의 ‘이기이원론적(理氣二元論的)’ 구도가 전통적인 ‘일원론적(一元論的)’ 세계관과 부딪히며 빚어낸 문제들을 녹문은 맹자를 통해 다시 일원론적 구도로 돌아감으로써 해결할 수 있다는 생각을 가졌던 것으로 보인다. 이 논문은 녹문의 이러한 해결방안이 어떻게 호락논쟁의 문제를 해소하고 있는지를 살펴볼 것이다.

The Horak Debate from the Reign of King Sukjong to King Sunjo

이경구 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2011 Korea Journal Vol.51 No.1

The Horak debate was a philosophical discussion that originated among Noron scholars who aspired to refine the logic of Neo-Confucianism. The first round of this controversy took place in the early eighteenth century, a time in which the political and philosophical dominance of the Noron faction was widely recognized throughout the Joseon dynasty. Then, Song Si-yeol’s students, divided into those who established a presence in the capital city Hanseong and those who did so in Chungcheong-do province, began to express conflicting opinions regarding the conclusions of the controversy. The differences between the two groups mainly stemmed from the issue of correctly interpreting the logic of Neo-Confucianism, and such differences later caused divisions of several academic schools and political parties within the Noron faction. The second round of the Horak debate occurred during King Yeongjo’s reign. From the onset of his reign, Yeongjo consistently argued that politics and philosophy were two distinct fields, and such an emphasis contributed to the significant divergence between the Ho-ron and Nak-ron scholars over the relationship between academia and politics. This time around, the Ho-ron group and the Nak-ron group each established its own identity as an academic school and began to criticize each other in a rather harsh manner in connection with political parties within the central government. Through the debate, philosophical differences evidently manifested themselves in the area of political ideology.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF MIBAL 未發 IN THE HORAK DEBATE

YOO WEON-KI 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.