박미하일의 『헬렌의 시간』과 다문화 수용 논제

박치완(Tchi-Wan PARK) 프랑스학회 2018 프랑스학연구 Vol.0 No.84

La question de l identité individuelle est-elle limitée par les frontières géographiques de l État? Certes, la nationalité se limite à un pays. Cependant, nous vivons aujourd’hui en traversant librement les frontrières. Notre mondre est devenu un «village planétaire». Dans ces conditions, l’identité serait présente là où notre âme se situe. On dit souvent qu’il n’y a rien de plus large que le cœur et rien de plus haut que l’esprit. Il serait donc impossible que le lieu où vit une personne et son origine ethnique ne capturent le cœur, l’esprit et l’âme de ce dernier. L écrivain coréen-russe de cinquième génération Mikhail PARK, nous allons voir dans cet article, est en train de tisser le Global Village dans son récent ouvrage Le Temps d’Hélène. C est pourquoi nous sommes convaincus que ce roman pourra transcender les frontières des territoires russes et coréens afin d’être apprécié par les lecteurs du monde. Dans l’histoire que mènent le héros coréen Sowol et l’héroïne éthiopienne Hélène, PARK dépeint la Corée comme un pays «mondial», basé sur le multiculturalisme. Bref, il n est pas exagéré de dire que l espace littéraire que PARK a incarné dans Le Temps d’Hélène vise à la fois la «globalité» et la «glocalité». Grâce à ses longues expériences multiculturelles, l’artiste nous montre un exemple fictif et réel de la manière dont les «conversations» entre les «cultures» devraient se poursuivre. Voici la principale raison pour laquelle nous examinerons le roman Le Temps d’Hélène de PARK dans cet article. Nous estimons que cet ouvrage a la valeur d’être étudié car il présente le «multiculturalisme» en utilisant la forme d’un roman au lieu d’une théorie.

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

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

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

박치완 ( Tchi Wan Park ) 경희대학교 비폭력연구소 2009 비폭력연구 Vol.2 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

영화 <세 얼간이>와 다문화사회 인도 엿보기

박치완(Tchi-wan PARK) 한국외국어대학교 철학문화연구소 2011 철학과 문화 Vol.23 No.-

라즈쿠마 히라니(Rajkumar Hirani) 감독의 2009년 슈퍼급 히트 작품인 <세 얼간이(3 Idiots)>는 인도는 물론이고 인도 밖에서도 널리 흥행한 마살라무비(Masala Movie)의 대표작이다. 2011년 8월 한국에서 개봉되었으며, 특히 한국의 주입식 교육현실의 폐해가 무엇인지를 되돌아보게 한다는 측면에서 이 영화는 매스컴의 지목을 받기도 했다. 본고에서 우리는 이 영화를 표층구조 상으로 드러난 ‘로맨스 코미디’나 ‘코미디 드라마’로 분석하는 항간의 일반적인 비평방식을 탈피해 ‘문화적 독법(cultural interpretation)’이라는 새로운 방법론을 적용해보았다. 이러한 우리의 선택은 영화 <세 얼간이>에 감추어진 인도 문화의 심층, 즉 인도의 문화코드(Culture Code)를 분석해보기 위해서다. 주지하듯 인도는 다문화(다종교, 다인종, 다언어, 다신분)사회다. 그런데 히라니 감독은 이러한 인도의 다문화성을 단지 현상적으로 묘사하는데 그치지 않고 그 심층의 고리를 보여줌으로써 인도사회가 안고 있는 문제점을 비판적으로 보여줄 뿐만 아니라 그 해결책도 제시한다. 12억 인도인이 좋아하는 마살라뮤직을 적절히 사용하면서 대사를 이중언어(힌디어와 영어)로 처리한 것도 같은 고민에서 나온 결과라 할 수 있다. 음악과 대사는 인도의 명문 공대인 ICE(Imperial College of Engineering)의 세 반항아가 던지는 메시지를 전달하는 매개이자 인도의 다문화성을 아우르는 촉매제이기도 하다. 모든 문화는 각기 고유한 토양을 가지고 있다. 다문화사회는 인도뿐 아니다. 그런데 불행히도 신자유주의의 등장과 더불어 ‘문화’는 점점 세계화의 먹이로 전락하고 있다. 전 세계를 지배하고 있는 무한경쟁, 약육강식의 논리가 그 주범이다. 그런데 <세 얼간이>에서는 바로 이것이 우리가 극복해야 할 제일 적임을 보여준다. 문화가 그렇듯, 삶의 서사(Narrative of Life)도 정체불명의 글로벌체제를 위해서 복무하는 것이 아니라 로컬에서 만들어지고 보존되며 전파된다. 그리고 그때에 한 해 그 로컬의 문화는 글로벌 세계로 나아갈 수 있다. 한류 열풍으로 들떠 있는 우리에게 <세 얼간이>가 건네는 교훈이 여기에 있다. <3 Idiots> by director Rajkumar Hirani, which was a big box office hit in India and in other countries in the year 2009, is a representative Masala movie. It was premiered in Korea in August 2011, and it received attention from the media, because it made viewers reflect on the harmful effects of the Korean education system. This article goes beyond the general method of reviewing the movie which is based on its superficial structure, i.e. the view that it is a ‘romantic comedy’ or a‘comedy drama’, and applies a new method of reviewing called ‘cultural interpretation’. This method was applied in order to analyse the deep structure of the Indian culture, i.e. the ‘culture code’ of India, that is hidden in the movie. It is well-known that India is a multi-cultural (multi-religious, multi-racial, multi-lingual, and multi-stratal) society. Hirani not only describes the multi-culturality of India phenomenologically, but also reveals the chains that lie underneath it, thereby critically showing the problems of the Indian society and proposing some solutions. The fact that he used Masala music, a favorite of the 1.2 billion Indian people, and made the movie bilingually using Hindi and English can be understood as a sign of his agony. The music and the dialogue are the media that deliver the message of the three rebels of ICE (Imperial College of Engineering), a prestigious college of engineering in India. At the same time, they are the catalyst that embrace the multi-culturality of India. Every culture has its own soil. And India is not the only multi-cultural society in the world. Unfortunately, however, with the advance of neo-liberalism, ‘culture’ is being reduced to prey to globalization. The culprit is the unlimited competition and the law of the jungle that dominate the world. <3 Idiots> shows that these are ourprincipal enemies that must be overcome. Like culture, the narrative of life does not exist to serve the elusive global system, but is made, conserved, and transmitted locally. And only that will make a local culture global. This is the lesson of <3 Idiots> to those of us who are overly excited about the Korean Wave.