http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
丁愚潭硏究 : 性理說에 關한 栗谷批判을 中心으로 Especially Criticising Yul-kok's theory on the Sung-Ri theory
劉明鍾 慶北大學校 1958 論文集 Vol.3 No.-
It has been a long time since Confucianism come to Korea. The theory of Chu-Ja, which originated in ths Song(宋) dynasty of China, was imported into our Country by Ann Yu(安裕) in the period of King Chung-Yul of the Koryo(高麗) dynasty. After the fall of the Koryo dynasty, the temps of its development gradually increaud after extablishment of the Lee dynasty. Them, it reached it's height during the eras of King Jung-Jong, Myung-Jong and Sun-Jo. It is commonly accepted that, in these periods, the representative philosphers were Toi-Gye Lee and Yul-Kok Lee. The philosophical views of these two Scholars were divided into, and preserved by two distinct schools; one is the Toi-Gye School and the other the Yul-Kok School. Again, both schools were in time developed into two political factions, and laid the foundation for the factional strife which long dominated the political history of the Lee dynasty. This obviously means that, originally, the purely academic controvery was transformed into political strife, and thereby exploited by both political factions. Toi-Gye Lee (1501-1570) recognized the motion of the Ri(理) on the psycholozical level. But Yul-Kok Lee (1536-1584), opposing him on the ground that Ri(理) is only formal rules and fictions, substituted the Ki(氣) for it, Yul-Kok's view was further systematized and used as the basis for the establishment of the so-called "Ju-Ki (主氣) School by Jang-Seng Kim (1548-1631), disciple of Yul-Kok, and by Si-Yul Song(1607-1689), disciple of Jang-Seng Kim." Thus, the factions of si-Yul Song, in holding the reins of government, antagonized and oppressed the so-called Nam-inn (南人) which consised of factions of Sung-Yong Yu(1542-1607) disciple of Toi-Gye. At this juncture, Hyon-Il Lee(1627-1704) one of Toi-Gye's adherents, criticized the theory of Yul-Kok, and formed the Toi-Gye School. So it is commonly called the Ju-Ri (主理) School. This School emphasized more the motion of Ri (理) on the Psychological level whiel recognizing also the motion of Ki (氣). Until now it has been assumed that Hyon-Il Lee was the founder of this School. But my recent study of Woo-Dam Jung(1625-1707) brought me to a rather rude awakening that Jung had the most important of the Toi-Gye School in the Ki-Ho area (Kyoung-Ki and Choong-Chung prouince) was mainly due to Jung's influence and that the origin of serious controversies over the problem, important in the developments of confucianism in our country, could be found in Woo-Dam Jung's important editions. The problem is whether the In-Sung (人性) and Mul-Sung (物性) are in the same category or not. But let me argue again that until recent times there has not been any considerable research along this direction. The reasons, I suppose, are the following. Firstly. collections of Woo-Doo Jung's work's had been buried in secret until 1911 when they were publshed after the ending of the coustant political strife; Secondly, even when they were pudlished in 191, the smallness of the edition the member of copier was so small that they did not receive wide circulation. Of course, there have been many Scholars among the Too-Gye School who Criticized the theory of Yul-Kok, but, it seems to me, their Criticisms be do not match Woo-Dam's either in quality or extent. His main works are as follows: Sa-Chil-Byong-Jun (四七辯證), San-Jung-Il-Ki (山中日記), Byoung-Mu-Rok (辯誣錄), Im-Ou-Rok (壬午錄), Kwan-Kyu-Rok (管窺錄), In-Mul-sung-Dong-Ii-Byon-Hu (人物性同異辯後). It is not necessary and suitable here to try to explain their content, because I have tried to do this in the main article in Korean.
劉明鍾 東亞大學校 大學院 1988 大學院論文集 Vol.13 No.-
After the Opium War, the traditional basis of Chinese ideology began to collapese by the shower of Western influences. Three conspicuous events were as follows: 1.Yen Fu's acceptance of evolutionism 2.Wang Kuo Wei's adoption of Berman idealism 3.Chang Ping lin's ultranationalism and revolutionism