근대성 = 아시아의 새로운 자기발견

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Once the subject ‘Asia and modernity’ was discussed in the field of historical science, it used to be generally dealt with in four theoretical types: colonial view of history, theory of immanent development, theory of colonial modernization and historical postmodernism. Although there are more or less antagonistic historical views and differences between those four types, all of them have a tendency to tally with the argument that the ‘modernity’ should be identified with the ‘Western capitalism and industrial society’. But all these theories seem to be (no matter how much they are for or against modernity) based on contracted and distorted version of modernity, and therefore I suggest that it must be understood as philosophical category. The modernity as a philosophical category should be equalized with the logocentrism, i. e. a cultural mode in which the hegemony struggle is performed through the superiority or inferiority of language and logic. On the basis of this new notion, the typical modernity could be found not only temporally in the 17<SUP>th</SUP> century or geographically in the Western Europe but also (especially) in the neo-confucian Chosun dynasty which was founded and governed in terms of philosophical (and therefore: logocentric) ideas. On the contrary, what is called as ‘modern symptoms’(colonialistic plunder, nature destruction etc.) ought rather to be characterized as anti-modernity under the mask of modernity. From the definition of this new philosophical view of history, the self-consciousness of Asians could be free from their extreme ressentiment against the modernity and historical defeatism.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Hösle, V., "헤겔의 체계 1" 한길사 2007

2 권대중, "헤겔의 언어철학-그의 정신론을 중심으로" 한국헤겔학회 (21) : 45-84, 2007

3 권대중, "헤겔의 반낭만주의에 함축된 철학적 층위들" 한국헤겔학회 (31) : 155-176, 2012

4 나종석, "헤겔에서의 오리엔탈리즘을 넘어서 - 아시아에 대한 새로운 상상을 위한 불충분한 성찰" 한국헤겔학회 (28) : 83-109, 2010

5 나종석, "헤겔과 아시아 －동아시아 근대와 서구 근대성에 대한 비판적 성찰－" 한국헤겔학회 (32) : 115-139, 2012

6 이동희, "헤겔 역사철학에 있어 '동양적 전제주의'의 문제" 한국헤겔학회 (28) : 59-82, 2010

7 박찬승, "한국학연구 패러다임을 둘러싼 논의-내재적 발전론을 중심으로-" 한국학연구원 (35) : 73-118, 2007

8 이헌창, "한국사 파악에서 내재적 발전론의 문제점" 40 (40): 2007

9 다나카, 스테판, "일본 동양학의 구조" 문학과지성사 2004

10 Lafontaine, O, "심장은 왼쪽에서 뛴다" 중앙북스 중앙엠앤비 2000

11 김광명, "숭고 의 문제 ― 칸트 미학에 대한 논의를 중심으로" 2 : 2007

12 윤해동, "동아시아 식민주의의 근대적 성격 ― ‘예’로부터 ‘피’로의 이행 ―" 아시아문화연구소 22 : 81-115, 2011

13 김교빈, "동아시아 근대성 담론에 대한 비판적 검토" 한국철학사상연구회 21 (21): 69-97, 2010

14 이홍락, "내재적 발전론 비판에 대한 반비판" 1997

15 L. Trotsky, "Socialists Thought: A Documentary History" 1964

16 G. Vico, "Prinzipien einer neuen Wissenschaft über die gemeinsame Natur der Völker" 1990

17 I. Kant, "Kritik der Urteilskraft" 165-, 1913