김봉진의 ‘삼원사고’와 그 비판

Abstract

In this article, I summarized the contents (introduction and 9 chapters) and the significances of Kim Bongjin’s book, titled Seeing the Old Future Again: Solving the East Asian History of Concepts from the Tri-dimensional Thinking. And, from my viewpoint, I laid criticism against a few flaws of the book. To sum up the significances, I would like to put some of them as below: First, simple and clear explanation for understanding the original meaning of several concepts of East Asia, frequently used in a branch of politics or diplomacy. Second, persuasive argument about the difference of the modern/modernity between Korea/China and Japan – between the ‘Confucian modern/ modernity’ and the ‘military ruling modern/modernity.’ Third, to bring up an important matter, that is, ‘the spell of (Western) modern/modernity.’ Fourth and the last, to suggest the necessary use of the ‘tri-dimensional thinking.’ Those are, I think, worthy of high evaluation.
 Kim Bongjin has put forward the ‘tri-dimensional thinking’ as a methodology to overcome the faults of the ‘dualistic, dichotomic thinking,’ rooted in (Western) modernism. I basically agree with him about this. Indeed, the dichotomic thinking, related with the black and white logic, produces a lot of problems and harmful effects. I wish he could continue to elaborate the tri-dimensional thinking. For this, I raised five questions about his arguments: First, I wonder whether the principles of Um-Yang (Ch: Yin-Yang) can be compatible with the thought of equality. Second, is it possible to draw an idea of the ‘rights of Chŏnlijayŏn (Ch; Tianliziran, the Nature of Heavenly Principle)’ out of li, the Neo-Confucian concept. Third, does the concept of order necessarily entail hierarchy? Concerning the usage of ‘equal order,’ is there a contradiction between equlity and order? Fourth, the confusion Um-Yang theory with li-gi (Ch: li-qi) theory. Fifth, does he make an enough his explanation for Toegye’s theory of sadan-chiljŏng (Ch: siduan qiqing, four beginnings and seven feelings)? If he could answer these questions well enough, his argument over the ‘tri-dimensional thinking’ would become more elaborated and persuasive.