RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 음성지원유무
        • 원문제공처
          펼치기
        • 등재정보
          펼치기
        • 학술지명
          펼치기
        • 주제분류
          펼치기
        • 발행연도
          펼치기
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        “황사영백서” 안의 신앙과 충(忠)의 혼재

        이종우 영산대학교 동양문화연구원 2022 동양문화연구 Vol.37 No.-

        The purpose of this paper is to reveal that the "Hwang-SaYoung BaekSeo(백서, 帛書, a letter written on silk)" is a mixture of Catholic faith and existing Neo-Confucianism. Through this, I would like to reveal Hwang-SaYoung's idea that cannot be divided only from a theological position that emphasizes freedom of faith and a position other than theology that defines it as an act of betraying the state. Hwang-SaYoung was born into a Confucian family and passed the GwaGeo(과거, 科擧, the highest-level state examination to recruit ranking officials during the Goryeo and Joseon Dynasty). This means that Hwang-SaYoung has a solid knowledge of Neo-Confucianism. Although he became a Catholic after marriage, his long-held knowledge of Neo-Confucianism could not be replaced by Catholicism at once. For this reason, there are many expressions similar to those of Neo-Confucianism in the "Hwang-SaYoung BaekSeo." In particular, it focused more on criticism of the strong political faction than on the royal authority, not on resistance to the king. In other words, the "Hwang-SaYeong BaekSeo" contains the faith of Catholicism and the loyalty of Neo-Confucianism. This aspect is also revealed in the criticism of vested interests toward Hwang Sa-Young. The establishment criticized Hwang-SaYoung for being a believer in socialism. And it was much later than when the "Hwang-SaYoung BaekSeo" incident took place that criticized Hwang-SaYoung for plotting to reverse the plot. This means that the core of Hwang-SaYoung's criticism was that vested interests were also heresy believers rather than treason. The reason why the evaluation of Hwang-SaYoung is divided is that the modern concept of loyalty or freedom of religion is applied as it is. If you look at the context of the time in a balanced way, you can see a new side that is different from the dichotomous view toward Hwang-SaYoung. 본 논문의 목적은 “황사영백서”에 천주교 신앙과 기존의 성리학적 충(忠)이 혼재해 있음을 밝히는 것이다. 이것을 통하여 신앙의 자유를 강조한 신학적 입장과 국가를 배신한 행위라고 규정한 신학 이외의 입장으로만 양분할 수 없는 황사영의 사상을 드러내고자 한다. 황사영은 유학자 집안에서 태어나서 과거에 급제했다. 이것은 황사영이 성리학 지식을 견고하게 갖추었음을 의미한다. 비록 혼인 이후 천주교 신자가 되었지만, 오랫동안 가지고 있던 성리학 지식이 한 번에 천주교 신앙으로 대체될 수 없었다. 이로 인해 “황사영백서”에는 성리학의 충과 유사한 표현이 많이 보인다. 특히 군왕을 향한 저항이 아닌 왕권보다 강한 붕당을 향한 비판에 더 비중을 두었다. 즉 “황사영백서”에는 천주교 신앙과 성리학의 충이 함께 담겨 있다. 이러한 모습은 황사영을 향한 기득권의 비판에서도 드러난다. 기득권 세력은 황사영을 사교(邪敎)의 신봉자라는 이유로 비판했다. 그리고 역모를 도모했다고 황사영을 비판한 것은 “황사영백서” 사건이 일어났을 때보다 훨씬 이후의 일이었다. 이것은 기득권 역시 역모보다는 이단의 신봉자라는 점을 황사영 비판의 핵심으로 보았음을 의미한다. 황사영에 대한 평가가 양분되는 이유는 충(忠)이나 종교의 자유라는 현대적 개념을 그대로 적용했기 때문이다. 당대의 맥락을 균형있게 바라본다면, 황사영을 향한 이분법적 시각과 다른 새로운 면을 확인할 수 있을 것이다.

      • KCI등재

        밀턴의 우상타파적 비전과 『투사 삼손』

        이종우 한국밀턴학회 2001 중세근세영문학 Vol.11 No.1

        This essay explores the way in which Milton's iconoclastic vision has historical meaning after the Restoration. After the failure of the English Revolution Milton is faced with a question about God's purposes. In the process of finding an answer he believes that God can still intervene in human history and that the cooperation between His providence and a follower like Samson can dramatically change the course of human history. This belief helps Milton prepare himself to participate again in contemporary politics. In this situation he forms iconoclastic vision as a means of responding to the historical process of the post-Restoration England. He substantiates the iconoclastic vision and proves its usefulness by showing that Samson has performed his historical mission of delivering his nation Israel through an iconoclastic act. However his iconoclastic activism is duly conditioned by time and the nature of the historical mission contingent upon it. Here the question is when the appropriate time is for an iconoclastic act. Milton answers that the act is effected in the time when the actors internalize God's time and providence and equip themselves with moral perfection. For Milton this kind of iconoclastic activism provides a model of political action for the revolutionaries after the Restoration. That is, when Milton and former revolutionaries are reconciled with God and are regenerated spiritually through overcoming moral trials, in His time and by His means they can re-engage actively and effectively with and perform their mission in the historical process of the post-Restoration period. This is the historical meaning that Milton's iconoclastic vision suggests in Samson Agonistes.

      • KCI등재후보

        지식과 권력의 규범적 관계 모색: 밀턴의 도덕적 지식과 이성적 정체(政體)

        이종우 한국고전중세르네상스영문학회 2002 중세근세영문학 Vol.12 No.2

        This essay discusses the problem of the relationship between power and knowledge, considering Milton's idea that true knowledge can provide the conditions for a thorough reform of society. In his political tracts, Milton expresses the idea that a new formation of political information and knowledge is required to limit the manipulative power of the politicians or partisan writers over susceptible people. According to Milton, the means of solving the problem of social control which stands in the way of a general reformation is to ensure the better circulation of knowledge and proper ethics. The process of King Charles I's condemnation and the event of his execution in 1649 raised some controversies about whether his trial was justified and the meanings that it had politically. Many pamphlets condemning the King or Parliament were published that voiced different views and explanations of the event. Royalists claimed that the execution was not carried out according to the proper procedures of the law. This view was opposed by Milton who argued in his political tracts that the King was a tyrant rather than a just ruler who abused his power and broke his contract with the people. Therefore, his execution was fully justified. Milton's concerns were not limited to the exploration of the King's wrong-doing nor the attacks of those who disagreed with him. He was also concerned with the problem of rhetoric which was shrewdly employed by the Royalist apologists to deceive the opponents. In Eikonoklastes, he aims to expose the crimes of King's regime. By showing how much of King's rule was dependent upon ill-conceived political machinations rather than a proper governmental policy, he attempts to demystify the King's image and to counter the false forms of knowledge created by Royalist propaganda. According to his argument, the King was not a locus of political authority rooted in intellectual leadership supported by true knowledge but a key figure in political imposture armed with the vanity of mere words. Although the King was far from being the earthly manifestation of the godly rule which Milton expected at the time, the people, nevertheless, tended to approve his tyrannical rule and engage in his idolatry. In this context, Milton's self-appointed task was to ensure that the people would be equipped with the ability to choose the interpretation which would best reveal the true nature of the King's words and deeds so that they could become no longer his dupes but his judges. As Milton continually stresses, the power of the state remains the province of the people rather than being inherent in authority. Therefore, as he suggests in Eikonoklastes, there is a need for active readership on the part of the English people in responding to Charles's regime and his carefully-crafted image. As Milton emphasizes in his political tracts of late 1640s and 1650s, it is very important for the readers to see a political situation correctly. One model he suggests is to break the "double sense deluding." It is a model of reading based on reason and judgement that can produce the moral knowledge necessary for the construction of an ideal polity rather than on the external authority of an institution. Warning about the moral and epistemological failure of the King's regime, Milton claims that an ideal new polity should base itself in the search for moral knowledge. The moral knowledge can be epitomized as following: "Truth is but Justice in our knowledge, and justice is but Truth in our practice." This knowledge, if understood properly, can provide the means to tackle some of the political problems of seventeenth-century England and lead to the creation of an ideal polity.

      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

        고속철도 시스템의 레일 전위 상승 해석

        이종우 대한전기학회 2003 전기학회논문지A Vol.52 No.8

        - In electric railway system, potential of rail has been risen, for return-current flows through rail. The magnitude of rising voltage is different to railway feed system, ground admittance of rail and the load current. If rising voltage of rail is large, electric shock can be occurred to passengers and maintenance- worker. In this paper, we estimate the rising voltage of rail in high speed railway system and check the safety to human beings.

      • KCI등재

        韓國儒學史 분류방식으로서 主理·主氣에 관한 비판과 대안

        이종우 철학연구회 2004 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.64

        문】한국유학사의 분류방식으로서 주로 主理派, 主氣派 개념을 쓰고 있다. 이러한 분류방식은 高橋亨이 처음 썼다. 하지만 이 개념은 객관적이지 못하고 편파적이다. 왜냐하면 당시에 主理=正學, 主氣=異端으로 사용했기 때문이다. 高橋亨은 李滉=主理派, 李珥=主氣派라고 분류하였는데 그것은 곧 李滉=正學, 李珥=異端이 될 수밖에 없다. 영남유림 柳은 李珥=主氣=異端이라고 비판했었다. 이 때문에 高橋亨의 분류방식은 객관적이지 못하다.본래 이 용어는 李滉이 四端=主理, 七情=主氣라고 한데서 비롯되었다. 이에 대하여 李珥는 四端=主理이나 七情=兼理氣라고 이황을 비판했었다. 그 후 영남유림 柳은 李珥의 理氣설을 主氣論이며 異端이라고 비판하면서 개념의 변화가 일어났다. 이러한 개념의 변화는 20세기초 李震相學派와 田愚學派간의 主理.主氣논쟁에서 더욱더 잘 드러난다. 李滉의 계승자 李震相은 자신의 心卽理說을 主理, 正學이라 칭하였으나 李珥學派의 心卽氣說을 主氣, 異端이라고 비판하였다. 반면에 李珥의 계승자 田愚는 心卽氣說을 主理, 正學이라 하고 李震相의 心卽理說을 主氣, 異端이라고 반박하였다. 그후 대를 이어 논쟁을 계속하며 서로를 비판하였다. 물론 李滉의 四端=主理, 七情=主氣의 용어가 완전히 사라진 것은 아니다. 여전히 李震相學派는 李滉의 四端=主理, 七情=主氣를 사용하고 田愚學派는 李珥의 四端=主理, 七情=兼理氣를 그대로 썼다.당시 高橋亨은 主理=正學, 主氣=異端이라고 사용하고 있는 것을 알고 있었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 李滉=主理, 李珥=主氣라고 한 것은 李滉을 지나치게 두둔하는 것이며 객관성을 상실한 편파적인 견해이다. 그의 李朝儒學史に於ける主理派主氣派の發達은 1928년에 발표한 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 객관성을 잃은 그의 분류방법을 국내학자들이 아직도 쓰고 있다는 것은 문제이다.따라서 본고에서는 主理=李滉學派, 主氣=李珥學派와 같은 분류방식을 비판하고 그 대안으로서 李滉學派=心學, 李珥學派=性學을 제시하였다.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼