글로컬 시대의 지역서사 : 체탄 바갓의 『투 스테이츠』를 중심으로

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 韓國世界文學比較學會 2013 世界文學比較硏究 Vol.42 No.-

Every cultural subject, in principle, is certainly controled by the physical time-space. But the physical time-space is not a time-space in which a man is confined the whole of his life. The cultural time-space has, at the same time, placeness and non-placeness, materiality and mentality, and locality and globality. The important point, in this study, is that the latter cannot be positioned in front of the former. It is the meaning of glocalization, and the principal viewpoint of this study. From the viewpoint of glocalization, the local as a category of enlarged cultural community from the individual is a horizon to form the narrative of life of each individual. Like this, the narrative of life is formed in the given cultural time-space. To every human being, the local-homeland is a pre-theoritical field, a storeroom of concrete/detailed experience as well as a source of thinking. Thus the narrative of life is shared and enjoyed by not only an individual but also the community, and is like the Meme that has been remembered and transferred over generations. The important point is that only the cultural gene transmitted like this can protect the community from the globalization of culture and the globalization of knowledge, that treat temporary and superficial technology, information and culture as the source of commercialization. In this study, the Indian bestseller Two States by Chetan Bhagat has been given a cultural analysis by this viewpoint. This novel is a work expressing a local narrative of India. But it is not a story limited to the locality of India. The conflict during the process from love to marriage is very common to every generation, every country and every individual. From this viewpoint this novel is an introductory remark representing the glocal period, and can be a fictitious challenge by the writer, Chetan Bhagat, to the planned and standardized globalization.

J. 데리다와 G. 들뢰즈의 "차이(差異)"와 용수(龍樹)의 중도(中道)

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 한국동서철학회 2006 동서철학연구 Vol.40 No.-

재현(-파괴) 논쟁과 실재 물음

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 한국해석학회 2006 해석학연구 Vol.18 No.-

All human beings are fundamentally endowed with the capacity of representation since they always change a given object X into a transformed object X`. By this standard, it is not cogent that the modern destroyers of representation conclude that representation in its classical meaning has no more efficiency. This means that denial and negation of the existing theory of representation do not guarantee a justification of non-representation(the destruction of representation). To be brief, non-representation is a sort of representation. Both belongs to representation. So they have only one difference and this difference depends upon whether we just describe or transform creatively an object that we want to express. If then, can we define our efforts about a new expression of an object as a non-representation attitude? Of course it is not. To express newly is the fundamental question since the birth of art. In that case, why do many modern artists prefer to express newly? It isn`t because they do not imitate an object, but because they do not want to believe that they do. However, even though they take refuge in non-representation, can they be freed from the fetters named imitation of an object? Isn`t that the word newly is also conceived from the given object X? Say in addition, representation is when the object X is changed into the object X`, whether the object that we want to express is abstract or concrete, whether many philosophers after Plato have thought that representation aims at the perfect accord with the object, and whether many modern artists believe that it aims at the expression of individuality and originality. And the X` as a product of transformation of the X is what is called the work of art. However, in all works of art, there is always the artist besides the X. It is the artist who changes the given X into the X`. That is why it is difficult to say that all works of art are the products achieved only by representation or only by non-representation, but they are the combined products of representation and non-representation. In consequence, it is a very dangerous and hasty conclusion if we think that the real object X has no meaning because non-representation is important. The real object X is not an illusion for the artist, but the real that exists around us since the beginning of things. It is the humans` works of art that always appear and vanish, but the natural world does not. In other words, our philosophical object is not the X` that will disappear soon, but the X that is always vivid. The point of this article is that the analysis about representation would vary according to the types of the real. The shape and meaning of representation would be changed so variously by the types of the real. Thus, an argument about representation needs to be embodied by fractionalizing the sort of the original object X and the represented object X`. And it may prevent a hasty conclusion that representation is the destruction of representation. If the noisy argument about the destruction of representation has no consideration for the real, then it would be just a vacant parody without any meaning.

로컬-지리적 자기인식으로서의 철학 그리고 칸트의 교훈

박치완 ( Park Tchi-wan ) 한국동서철학회 2020 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.95

자신의 로컬-지리에도 능통하지 못한 정치가나 기업가가 글로벌 세계를 위한 비전을 제시할 수 있을까? 자신의 로컬-지리의 시민들에 대해 무관심한 사회학자나 인류학자가 인류의 미래를 논한다는 것이 가능한 일이기나 한가? 이러한 질문을 통해 본고에서 우리는 철학과 장소, 더 구체적으로는 로컬-지리와의 불가분의 관계를 칸트의 (자연)지리학에 대한 강의에서 교훈을 얻어 ‘지리 철학’의 중요성을 되새기는 논의를 전개해볼까 한다. 최근 ‘지리 철학’에 대한 관심이 부상하고 있는데, 이는 일차적으로 인간의 세계인식은 과거에도 그리고 현재에도, 세종대왕의 한양에서도 트럼프의 워싱턴에서도 그 출발은 언제나 로컬-지리 ‘안에서’ 그리고 로컬-지리 ‘위에서’ 진행된다는 상식에 근거한다. 그리고 두 번째로는 세계화로 인해 많은 로컬들에서 탈로컬화, 탈영토화가 급속도로 진행되는 과정에서 이에 대한 성찰의 일환으로 로컬-지리에 대한 자각이 생기(生起)하면서부터다. 로컬-지리는 각기 고유한 사유전통, 이해체계를 생산하고 소비하는 장소이다. 따라서 어떤 철학이건 누구의 이론이건 재지성((在地性)과 본토성(本土性)을 품고 있기 마련이다. 로컬-지리는 ‘객관-보편-과학’의 이름으로 사상(捨象) 되거나 환원될 수 없는 불가침의 영역과도 같다. 그래서 철학은 ‘지리 철학(geo-philosophy)’일 수밖에 없다. Despite the fact that politicians and entrepreneurs are not familiar with the local-geography which they belong to, can they provide a vision for the global world? Is it possible for a sociologist or anthropologist who is indifferent to the citizens of the local-geography to which he/she belongs, to discuss the future of humanity? In this article, with these questions in mind, we will discuss the inseparable relationship between philosophy and local-geography, that is, the importance of geo-philosophy by following lessons from Kant's lecture on natural geography. The recent rise of interest in geo-philosophy is primarily based on the commonsense notion that the world perceptions of humans always proceed both from the inside of local-geography and the above of local-geography. Secondly, due to globalization, delocalization and deterritorialization are rapidly progressing in many localities and they originate in the awareness of local-geography as a part of reflection from humans. Local-geography is a place to produce and consume one’s own unique traditions and understanding systems. In any philosophy, it is bound to have territoriality and be mainland-focused. As a simple example, this distinction between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy is attributed to these factors: If the stage of thought is different, the fruit of it also is necessarily different. Local-geography is an inviolable realm that cannot be absorbed or reduced to the name of ‘object-universal-science’.

J. 보드리야르의 시뮬라크르, 시뮬라시옹 개념에 대한 일 반역(反譯)

박치완 ( Tchi Wan ParK ) 한국해석학회 2008 해석학연구 Vol.21 No.-

Many of European philosophers cited or remembered by people have created their own`s philosophical concept without exception. Even though we set boundary of comtemporary French-philosophy, it is proved by Bergson`s Duree, Merleau-Ponty`s Chair, Derrida`s Differance, Deleuze`s Difference, Foucault`s Episteme, Levinas`s Autre, Wunenburger`s Dualitude, Lefebvre`s Quotidiente, Bourdieu`s Habitus and so on. Baudrillard`s Simulacrum (or Simulation) that we are going to focus on this study is the same. However, we should carefully consider a fact that all new philosophical concepts do not always present the open-world to us. In other words, sometimes they do not fundamentally serve the Real as a medium of philosophy. They are not based on the soundness for the thought and even for the world. The French expression, le Tout contre tous(a match for a hundred) is an example of the extreme way, which means that someone uses only one concept for explaining all phenomenon. And Baudrillard`s Simulacrum exposes this way. He denies whole existing things for constructing the structure of thought that he dreaming by using one concept that is called Simulacrum. However his attempt is not possible to realize in the real world, and it is an attractive work just in fiction, but not in the theory. For there is an essential difference between fiction and theory. On this study, we will critically or reflectively access Baudrillard`s fiction by remembering Bacon`s aphorism, if an untruth in truth has once spreaded, it never calms down. And we will consider what his firm belief about the technology, the electronic system and the information that he missing. And then finally we will emphasize that his analysis-model for the future american consumer society is not possible to be a model for sound society by any means. Nowadays, the image is becoming vulgar. All things are changed to consumption goods in the consumer society and human beings are also included in this society. In short, image and simularcrum do not have any spirituality and holiness. There is the reason why we have to free ourselves from the digital field. If we do not make any effort to out of the hole, then we will stay forever as a slave in an artificial cave that is called Baudrillard`s simulation. We can not do anything for the people who do not realize it and just enjoy personally as homo digipiens and homo connectus. However, that is why we look straight the real world, and refuse the world of Baudrillard`s simulation that work by the simulacrum.

p.베르낭의 비가시적 세계의 형상화로서 이미지 개념

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 한국해석학회 2009 해석학연구 Vol.23 No.-

In this article, I purpose to inquire the spirituality and divinity of images. Moreover, I will observe what we lose in the process of production and consumption of the various images in these days, and what the genuine role of images are. There were many scholars who argued about the spirituality and divinity of images, such as G. Bachelard, M. Eliade, G. Durand, etc. But I will discuss this theme with Myhte et pensee chez les Grecs wrote by J-p.Vernant, since he is an erudite expert in the field of Greek religion and folk tradition. He named the fifth chapter of this book Du double a l`image. This is a new interpretation of his about the images which are told in the interpretation about le double. About being formed from the invisible world, le double and the image have a common denominator. According to Vernant, le double is an external reality, and it`s spirit interacts with the human subject. Le double acts in the human subject as an internal force, and this relationship between le double and the human subject is internalized. According to M. Merleau-Ponty`s expression, this means that the invisible world could be visible by le double. At this point, le double belongs to two different worlds at the same time. For Vernant, the image has a similar role as le double. This is because the visible things and the figured presents are formed from the invisible things and the absent presents. In particular, ancient Greeks and Romans consider that the image has spirituality and divinity. This is a very different view point of the image between the ancient perspective and the contemporary perspective. We only see and consume many visual and sensible images in everyday life without this consideration. In this respect, it should be restrained in talking that the image is a only product of human intelligence, and a mystery of the simulacrum as G. Deleuze and J. Baudriallard say. When the spirituality and divinity of images are restored in ourselves, the image and le double could give us an infinitude depth that cannot be measured by the pragmatic mind. At least in a level of argumentation, a study about the image should be started from the spirituality and divinity of images. We must not be deceived by the appearance of various images and the marketing of signifiant that are technologically producted and re-producted in these days.

데카르트와 수사학

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 한국해석학회 2007 해석학연구 Vol.20 No.-

Can we tell the Descartes`s Cogito, as interpreted by comtemporary philosophers, is the positioned subject? As they`s analysis, is the Cogito a starting point and a basis of the cognition of object, the interpretation of world? If the Cogito is the positioned subject, where is the proof, especially in Descartes`s work? The aim of this paper is to solve that problem. If insofar Descarte`s Cogito is radically pertained to the God, as he told us in the Discourse on Method and Meditations, isn`t Cogito as a result of misunderstanding? Yes. The Cogito, that is, the subject of Descartes is not a modern subject, but a hypothetical subject to the own principle of philosophy. In the event, we can consider traditional interpretations, by Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, have a problem. The misunderstanding produced by Descartes himself. Especially he confused philosophical method(Argumentation) with scientific method (Demonstration) and individual belief with common persuasion, preferred to one-sided exaction rather than quiet explanation. We can find that, where he proofs the Cogito. Then we arrive at the conclusion that the Descartes`s whole philosophy constituted by a incomplete structure of argumentation. Descartes`s philosophy and his Cogito confront with the fate to reinterpretation. In the end, we`ll conclude that his argumentation of Cogito is failed rhetoric. His failed argumentation, in brief, a fail of persuasion about a reader results from the selfish and dogmatic structure of discourse, his inconsistent style and rhetoric. It is a proof that Descartes`s structure of argumentation is meager to persuade the reader.

현대 예술과 기술의 해석학 W. 벤야민의 <기술복제시대의 예술작품>에 대한 비판적 해석

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 한국해석학회 2008 해석학연구 Vol.22 No.-

In these days, the technological reproducibility is a generalized appearance. The technological reproducibility always rises above utility and space of argument to ask ethical value, and the masses receive it without any reflection. It operates everywhere, frees from a limited range and a limited territory. In this point, Benjamin`s <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility> locates on the unconsciousness of contemporary masses who are accustomed to the technological reproducibility. This article is a type to ours to consider problem of technological reproducibility and an important object of elucidation. Because technological reproducibility is a more exigent philosophical problem than ever before. In <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility>, Benjamin seeks to the change of traditional form of art and concept of art and shows the direction of future art. According to him, the movie will becomes the art of future, that is to say, the matrix of the social revolution that be formed by the masses. But we can ask the question as follow: do works of art the mass-reproduced, as like a photograph and a movie, etc., really contribute to the realization mass society? Is technological reproducibility the direct cause that presses the society to the danger rather than new power of the social revolution? If so, the contemporary works of art are produced and consumed out of the his theoretical range. Indeed, these questions relate to our attitude that how can we accept contemporary technological reproducibility. It is not an analogical reproduction that prevailed in that age of Benjamin, but a digital reproduction. In the latter case, the originality and the Aura, that are regarded as important by Benjamin, aren`t essential concepts. Especially, of course in the real space and in the virtual space, the digital reproduction in contemporary meaning is produced and disappeared. Frankly speaking, a mass of the information that is consisted of bits is the form of digital picture. In digital picture, each bit is meaningless, but if bits are constructed to an information, then it has a meaning. Fundamentally, the digital picture was born of manipulation of bits, by reason of this, we don`t demand the authority as the work of art or the Aura that Benjamin said. And the value of digital picture appears by the interaction of circulator and the user`s positive reaction. Strictly speaking, the value of contemporary work of art is determined by the number of visitors rather than originality and unique value as the work of the art. And that Aura is nothing but information that attracts visitors. That is why V. Flusser emphasizes the finger`s clapping on the keyboard rather than the faculty of hand or eye. On the Flusser`s position, we can confirm that the Benjamin`s thesis - a work of art can reproduce with complete fidelity - is an unreasonable request. We can`t approve that Benjamin`s Technische Reproduzierbarkeit has digital`s meaning. Because it`s too exaggerated. His <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility> is a elucidation on his own purpose. That`s why we consult Flusser`s opinion, then we make a difference between the analogical picture and the digital picture and then judge that Flusser`s position is more real and persuasive than Benjamin`s position. If we admit that the masses aggravate the alienation rather than enjoy mind-decentralized entertainment by many technological images, then the possibility of technological reproducibility is not essence of creation of a work of art but just a legacy of homo faber. Because the art always resists the possibility of reproduction.

질베르 뒤랑의 이미지와 상징 해석이 갖는 현대적 의의 -『상징적 상상력』과 『신화비평과 신화분석』을 중심으로-

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 한국해석학회 2010 해석학연구 Vol.25 No.-

In this article, we will consider the contemporary meaning of Gilbert Durand`s interpretation about Image and Symbol. According to him, since Aristotle, Image and Symbol, Myth and Archetype, Imagination and Imaginaire are degraded by the logic of self-identity and the measurementism. Despite the fact that they are mass produced as pseudo-goods by the progress of technics and media, nowadays their meanings are diminished and distorted. In other words, his aim is to restore the natural meaning of Image and Symbol from the situation that is covered by signifiant, spectacle and simulacrum. To follow this aim, Durand did not take notice of image as signifiants, but image as signifieds, that is Imago in latin. It means that we will not inquire about image and symbol as the ornamentality and formality, but as the potential dynamic multiplicity and invisibility. According to Durand, the essence of image and symbol is a new decodable possibility and verbalizable possibility. So if the man pursues quality and depth of life, he must turn to not the signifiant, but the signified. Thus, what Durand propose to us is to open the New Human Science(Science de l`Homme) by the inquiry about plural meaning that is inherent in image and symbol. Durand says Homo sapiens is after all Homo symbolicus, as Homo symbolicus, we have to confront the empire of signifiant by the capacity of symbolization and the human capacity that relates transcendency. When Homo symbolicus, who undertakes to mediate between `this-world and that-world` and `real world and transcendental world`, obtains his autonomy, the western rationalism, that develops for the meaningless signifiant, will be conquered. With the sympathy of Durand`s diagnostic of the present time, we will hope that his new human character and world view change the stream of radicalized iconoclasm.

기획논문 : 언어폭력과 비폭력 ; 데리다의 언어유희, 그 함정과 역설적 폭력성

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 경희대학교 비폭력연구소 2009 비폭력연구 Vol.2 No.-