데리다의 해체주의 인식론에 대한 칼빈 신학적 비판 = (A) Critique of Deconstructive Epistemology in Jacques Derrida on the perspective of Calvin's Theology

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is critique of deconstructive epistemology in Jaycees Deride, extreme post-modernist on the perspective of Calvin's theological epistemology.
Deconstructionism in Deride has threatened the Christian Religion with great strength. The reason is that deconstructionism came from resist against Western metaphysics and is a sort of defiance of Christian Religion as a Book. Deconstruction doesn't simply mean the end of the Reason, the center frame of modernism, and the Death of God. It is rather a charge of the violence that Reason, Epistemic Subject, has and repulsion for the pursuit of the absolute truth of the Christian Religion. Wan that sense, his thought seems to be easily absorbed and present a brand new vision to intellectuals
The essence of Deconstructionism in Deride consists in epistemology. He coped with concept of post-modernism pioneers with jumping the horizon of ontological cognition. So to speak, He found motives of deconstruction in the subject of Heist that Headgear's metaphysics had dealt with, Nietzsche's style, and Husserl's phenomenology, however he have developed a new epistemological point of view by differentiating them.
By demarcation between Book and Text, he announced the end of the Book. Simultaneously, he claimed that the only thing left is the Text. His difficult passage, "nothing outside the text (il n'y a pas de horstexte.)" means epochs of objective and fixed pursuit of meaning through abstruseness, a main characteristic of Text. This epistemological structure, in conclusion, shows that his view of understanding has extreme relativity and obscurity.
Derides epistemology could be judged as follows. First, he addressed the limitation of finite Human Reason. Second, he seized the violence that the pursuit of objective meanings and centralized central concept have. Thirdly, active openness to otherwise through limits of epistemic subject was supposed. However he contributed like above, his epistemology had several problems as below. First, his thought was exposed to the possibility of extreme principal pluralism. Wan the second place, it is possible that the recognition of decentralized concept may commit violence. Lastly, his epistemology was mere Dionysian since it didn't present a constructive alternative plan.
Deride didn't criticize the Christian Religion in direct but deconstructed the core of the Christian Religion. That's why the faith in Christian Religion is a matter of recognition. He had challenged the Christian Religion seriously as below. First, he regarded that Christian Religion is confined to the category of metaphysics onto-theological recognition. Thus it is a typical model of Western metaphysics, without stepping' out of ontology. Second, it is recognition of arrogance and self-complacence confined to speculative frame. He hypercriticized as there have been only violence.
What answer will the Christian Religion give to Derides challenge? Wan Calvin's theological epistemology, some cornerstones of responding to Derides challenge could be found as below. His theological cpistemology, first, is not a recognition limited to ontological metaphysics but recognition of depending on and being relates with the Absolute Other, God. Second, theological recognition is not wandering in limitation of speculativeness. The aim of theological recognition is the 'phronesis' as sanctification. In this sense, it is clear that Calvin's theological epistemology proved that Christian Religion did not stayed at western metaphysics and already has a solution of the threat of violence.
Moreover, in spite of the contribution of Derides epistemology, Christian Religion could not accept his thought. The reasons are as below. First, it is extrinsically that he criticizes Christian Religion or
Western metaphysics. His critique on being and psycho-sphere and is obscure. Simultaneously, he thought the cause of violence as the structure and centralizes concept. However, the violence doesn't exist in the visible structure and the pursuit of the centralizes concept. It is in the human being's natures sin.
Secondly, his active openness on Otherwise resulted from the pursuit in limitations. Limitation cannot recognize Infinity. It is impossible to pursue infinity in limitation. Thus it is a correct way to approach limitation from infinity, not an opposite way of opening from limitation to infinity. In this sense, his Otherwise was originally wrong in directionality.
In conclusion, Deconstructionism in Deride had pointed out arrogance and self-complacence of Western metaphysics and Christian Religion superficially. Wt could not be a sufficient and intrinsically critique on Christian Religion. Calvin' theology already gave us the answer to Deride.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• A. 문제제기와 연구목적 = 1
• B. 연구방법 및 범위 = 3
• C. ACTS 신학공관운동과 본 논문과의 관계 = 5
• Ⅱ. 본론 = 8
• A. 데리다의 해체주의 인식론 이해 = 8
• 1. 해체주의 사상의 형성 배경과 경향성 = 8
• a. 전통적 서양 지식관의 일반적 흐름 = 8
• b. 인간주체에 대한 반성 = 12
• c. 구조주의에 대한 건설적 극복 = 18
• d. 후설의 현상학에 대한 반성 = 25
• e. 현존의 형이상학에 대한 반성 = 29
• 2. 해체주의의 인식론에 있어 형이상학 해체 = 36
• a. 하이데거의 정신적 형이상학에 대한 창조적 극복 = 37
• b. 데리다의 형이상학 해체의 모티브 : 니체의 에쁘롱 = 40
• c. 후설의 현상학적 환원을 통한 형이상학 해체 = 44
• 3. 데리다의 해체주의 지식관의 특성 = 49
• a. 해체주의의 비결정성과 여백(餘白)의 지식관 = 50
• b. 은유를 해체하는 대리보충적 (supple^(´)ment) 지식관 = 53
• c. 근원들(sources)과 관계하는 장식적(裝飾的 parergon) 지식관 = 59
• 4. 데리다의 해체주의 인식론의 구조 = 65
• a. 난해한 텍스트의 성격 : 의미 (meaning)의 종말 = 65
• b. 인식의 방법론 : 판단중지 (ε^(´)ποΧη^(´)) = 70
• c. 절대적 인식에 대한 반동:상호무관적 (相互無關的) 인식 = 75
• B. 데리다의 해체주의 인식론 평가 = 79
• 1. 해체주의 인식론의 공헌점 = 80
• a. 유한한 인간 이성(理性)에 대한 재고(再考) = 80
• b. 지배적 개념의 폭력성에 대한 저항 = 85
• c. 타자성의 필요성에 대한 적극적 개방 = 91
• 2. 해체주의 인식론의 한계점 = 97
• a. 극단적 원리적 다원주의 (principical pluralism)의 위험성 = 97
• b. 새로운 이데올로기로써 폭력을 행사할 가능성 = 102
• c. 건설적 대안 제시 불가 = 106
• C. 칼빈의 신학적 인식론 이해 = 111
• 1. 칼빈 신학에 있어 인식론의 위치 = 111
• 2. 칼빈의 신학적 인식론의 성격 = 115
• 1) 신 의존적 인식론 = 116
• 2) 관계론적 인식론 = 120
• 3) 실천적 지혜로써의 인식론 = 126
• D. 해체주의 인식론의 도전과 칼빈의 신학적 인식론의 응전과 비판 = 131
• 1. 기독교종교 인식론에 대한 해체주의 인식론의 도전 = 131
• a. 형이상학의 범주 안에 갇힌 기독교종교 = 131
• b. 사변적 틀 안에 갇힌 기독교종교 인식론 = 136
• 2. 해체주의 도전에 대한 칼빈의 신학적 인식론의 응전 = 142
• a. 칼빈의 응전 1:관계론적 인식론에로의 전환 = 143
• b. 칼빈의 응전 2:실천적 지혜 (Phronesis)로의 전환 = 148
• 3. 해체주의 인식론에 대한 칼빈의 신학적 인식론의 비판 = 155
• a. 비본질적 추구에 표류하는 해체주의 인식론 = 156
• b. 유한성의 한계 속에서 표류하는 해체주의 인식론 = 163
• Ⅲ. 결론 = 168
• A. 데리다의 해체주의 인식론과 칼빈의 신학적 인식론 요약 = 168
• B. 칼빈의 신학적 인식론과 ACTS 신학공관운동의 전망 = 171
• 약어표(Abbreviations) = 174
• 참고문헌(Bibliography) = 175
• Abstract = 183