http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 정호훈(Jeong Ho-Hoon) (검색결과 7 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
정호훈(Jeong Ho-Hoon) 한국사연구회 2006 한국사연구 Vol.135 No.-
This writing addressed the Political Thought of Jeong Do-jeon, who is the leading role of Joseon's foundation. Jeong Do-jeon criticized Goryeo Society based on the New Confucianism(Seongrihak), and mapped out a Political System, which is required for the new Nation Joseon. Jeong Do-jeon externalized a Plan that can step up the Unity in Politics and the Centralization in a System, by taking Advantage of this Thinking. 《Joseongyeonggukjeon(朝鮮經國典)》 was a Book that contained this Political Conception. The Point that is noted in this Book is many. First, it stressed much a Role of the Law in operating a Nation. What the Law is the mainly instrumental Means for the good Government was Jeong Do-jeon's Idea. Second, he thought that the Nation's Citizenship needs to be intensified largely. What becomes the Core was an Issue that increases the Nation's commanding Power over the People and the Land. Third, he considered that the practical Operation of a political System needs to be attained centering on the prime Minister. Fourth, his political Theory of centering on the prime Minister had a characteristic that attaches Importance to ‘an Achievement’. It was said that the Achievement and the Result are completed by realizing such moral Character and Talent through Bureaucracy, with the prime Minister and Officialdom of having Virtue and Capability. His political theory was much distant from a political Theory of Jujahak(Zhu Xi philosophy), which had the Logic that Bureaucrats including a Monarch preferentially require the perfect Morality, and on the Basis of this, need to perform Politics. Jeong Do-jeon was arranging for a political Theory based on the New Confucianism, but didn't utilize Jujahak enough. This political Theory had Tendency of Hsun tzu(荀子) more strongly than of Mengtzu(孟子). What his learning comes to be excluded by Sadaebu(ruling elite) in Joseon, without being accepted, seems that this Element functioned greatly. In terms of trying to maintain the Position as a Sovereign along with Autonomy as Yangban(兩班) Sadaebu(士大夫), the political Theory of Jujahak was more efficient. What people in the 16th Century had tried to establish a System of learning from Jeoluipa(節義派) since Jeong Mong-ju, was a part of an Effort aiming to have the political Theory of Jujahak as their Thinking.
-
-
-
-
정호훈 ( Ho Hoon Jeong ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2006 儒學硏究 Vol.14 No.-
이 글에서는 조선후기 소론(少論)의 대표적 학자인 윤증과 그의 장인인 권시와의 학문적 교류가 어떻게 이루어지고 있었던 가를 살폈다. 두 사람이 사제 관계를 맺은 것은 윤증의 나이20세 때 권시의 사위가 되면서 였다. 윤증은 이미 그 이전에 아버지와 유계(兪棨)의 가르침을 받고 있었으므로 권시로부터 받은 영향이 결정적이지는 않았다. 권시는 사위 윤증에게 고담준론의 성리설(性理說)에 천착하지 말며 일상에서의 도덕 실천에 힘쓸 것을 가르쳤다. 윤증 학문의 특성을 흔히 무실(務實)을 강조한다는 데서 구하는데, 이것은 아마도 권시의 가르침과도 연관이 있을 것이다. 한편, 권시와 윤증 두 사람은 당대 정치적 현안에 대해서는 첨예하게 대립했다. 두 사람의 신상에 공히 구체적이고 직접적으로 영향을 미친 일은 윤휴(尹.)의 주자학에 대한 비판적 태도와 그를 둘러싼 기호 지역 사림들의 논란, 그리고 복제(服制)에 대한 논쟁이었다. 두 사람이 이 사안들에 대한 접근 태도는 전혀 달랐다. 권시는 윤휴의 학문적 태도를 옹호하고 3년상을 주장했지만, 윤증은 윤휴에 대해 비판적이었으며 또 3년상에 대해서도 부정적이었다. 정반대되는 생각을 가지고 있었던 두 사람은 여러 차례 의견 교환을 하면서도 끝내 자기의 의견을 굽히지 않았다. 요컨대, 윤증과 권시는 학문상 어느 정도 교류가 있었지만, 정치적인 의견에서는 첨예한 의견 대립을 보였다고 할 수 있다. 이는 권시가 남인(南人)이었고 윤증이 소론(少論)이었던 점과 연관이 있을 것이다. This writing examined how academic exchanges were being attained between YunJeung, who is a typical scholar in Soron(the Westerners and Southerners, etc.) in the latter term of Joseon, and GwonSi, who is his father-in-law. GwonSi(?媤) taught his son-in-law YunJeung(尹拯) not to indulge in metaphysical Neo-confucian theory(性理?) and to positively practice daily morality. As the characteristic in YunJeung`s learning is obtained frequently in emphasizing an effort for substance, his this academic characteristic is considered to be probably associated with GwonSi`s teaching. Meanwhile, both persons, GwonSi and YunJeung, were acutely opposed to each other on the contemporarily political questions. What had specifically and directly influence upon circumstances of both persons included YunJeung`s critical attitude toward Jujahak(Zhu Xi philosophy), adverse criticism in people of Giho province surrounding him, and Controversy over courtesy(禮訟). The approaching attitudes in two people toward these matters were completely different. GwonSi advocated YunHyu(尹?)`s academic attitude and asserted 3-year condolence, but YunJeung was critical about YunHyu, and was negative even about 3-year condolence. Both persons, who had the exactly opposite thought, didn`t abandon own opinion in the end regardless of exchanging opinions several times. In a nutshell, YunJeung and GwonSi had some interchanges in light of learning, but can be said to have shown the sharp confrontation in a political opinion. This will be connected to a point that GwonSi was Namin(南人) and YunJeung was Soron(少論).
-
정호훈 ( Ho Hoon Jeong ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2007 儒學硏究 Vol.15 No.-
이 글에서는 조선후기 소론(少論)의 대표적 학자인 윤증과 그의 장인인 권시와의 학문적 교류가 어떻게 이루어지고 있었던 가를 살폈다. 두 사람이 사제 관계를 맺은 것은 윤증의 나이 20세 때 권시의 사위가 되면서 였다. 윤증은 이미 그 이전에 아버지와 유계(兪棨)의 가르침을 받고 있었으므로 권시로부터 받은 영향이 결정적이지는 않았다. 권시는 사위 윤증에게 고담준론의 성리설(性理說)에 천착하지 말며 일상에서의 도덕 실천에 힘쓸 것을 가르쳤다. 윤증 학문의 특성을 흔히 무실(務實)을 강조한다는 데서 구하는데, 이것은 아마도 권시의 가르침과도 연관이 있을 것이다. 한편, 권시와 윤증 두 사람은 당대 정치적 현안에 대해서는 첨예하게 대립했다. 두 사람의 신상에 공히 구체적이고 직접적으로 영향을 미친 일은 윤휴의 주자학에 대한 비판적 태도와 그를 둘러싼 기호 지역 사림들의 논란, 그리고 복제(服制)에 대한 논쟁이었다. 두 사람이 이 사안들에 대한 접근 태도는 전혀 달랐다. 권시는 윤휴의 학문적 태도를 옹호하고 3년상을 주장했지만, 윤증은 윤휴에 대해 비판적이었으며 또한 3년상에 대해서도 부정적이었다. 정반대되는 생각을 가지고 있었던 두 사람은 여러 차례 의견 교환을 하면서도 끝내 자기의 의견을 굽히지 않았다. 요컨대, 윤증과 권시는 학문상 어느 정도 교류가 있었지만, 정치적인 의견에서는 첨예한 의견 대립을 보였다고 할 수 있다. 이는 권시가 남인(南人)이었고 윤증이 소론(少論)이었던 점과 연관이 있을 것이다. This writing examined how academic exchanges were being attained between YunJeung, who is a typical scholar in Soron(the Westerners and Southerners, etc.) in the latter term of Joseon, and GwonSi, who is his father-in law. GwonSi (權시) taught his son-in law YunJeung(尹拯) not to indulge in metaphysical Neo-confucian theory(性理說) and to positively practice daily morality. As the characteristic in YunJeung`s Learning is obtained frequently in emphasizing an effort for substance, his this academic characteristic is considered to be probably associated with GwonSi`s teaching. Meanwhile, both persons, GwonSi and YunJeung, were acutely opposed to each other on the contemporarily political questions. What had specifically and directly influence upon circumstances of both persons included YunJeung`s critical attitude toward Jujahak(Zhu Xi Philosophy), adverse criticism in people of Giho province surrounding him, and Controversy over courtesy(禮訟). The approaching attitudes in two people toward these matters were completely different. GwonSi advocated YunHyu(尹휴)`s academic attitude and asserted 3-year condolence, but YunJeung was critical about YunHyu, and was negative even about 3-year condolence. Both persons, who had the exactly opposite thought, didn`t abandon own opinion in the end regardless of exchanging opinions several times. In a nutshell, YunJeung and GwonSi had some interchanges in light of learning, but can be said to have shown the sharp confrontation in a political opinion. This will be cormected to a point that GwonSi was Namin(南人) and YunJeung was Soron(少論).
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
