Han Wonjin Research Articles

한원진 인간본성론의 현대적 의의: 나바에츠(D. Narvaez)의 관점

The purpose of this study is to discuss the modern significance of Han Won-jin's theory of nature by interpreting it from the perspective of Narvaez. Until now, Han Won-jin's theory of nature has been interpreted as meaning that the nature of humans and animals is different by contrasting with the two. This can also be said to be a meaningful work in the history of philosophy. However, there seems to be little discussion on the implications of the argument that human and animal nature are different in terms of moral education. In particular, although it is a very interesting argument to argue that human nature is not only different from animals, such as Han Won-jin, but that each person has a difference in nature, it is difficult to find a case that reveals the implications or modern significance of the word. Assuming that each person has a different nature, that is, a moral virtue, it can be assumed that each person has a different moral judgment ability or moral response ability [虛靈知覺]. From this, it is possible to explore why moral education is necessary for everyone beyond the class limits of the Joseon Dynasty along with the necessity of moral education. In addition, Narvaez's model of moral experts is a good criterion for making such an attempt. Aristotle's virtue ethics, the philosophical origin of this model, is not only consistent with the nature of Confucianism, but also the series of processes from beginners to experts is in large part consistent with the content of royal lectures and discussions based on Han Won-jin's concept of nature. In addition, this model has great implications for estimating that modern and contemporary intellectuals' struggles to protect nationality and democratic citizenship against the Japanese colonial period and military dictatorship are directly connected to Joseon Confucianism, especially Han Won-jin's theory of nature. Therefore, this study explored the moral educational meaning of Han Won-jin's theory of nature based on Narvaez's model of moral experts.

『주자언론동이고』에 대한 시론적 고찰

In this paper, I have examined whether the three methods elucidated by Han Won-jin in the preface of Jujaeonrondongeego(朱子言論同異攷)—namely, the verification of the time of writings, mutual comparison of relevant remarks, and judgment based on theoretical consistency—successfully achieve the purpose of this book, which aims to confirm the final conclusion of Zhu Xi(朱熹), especially focused on the part of dealing with Ren Xin Dao Xin (人心道心) of Shujing(書經). Although it may sound somewhat conventional, it seems inevitable to acknowledge that this book also has both achievements and limitations. In ‘Ren Xin Dao Xin(人心道心)’, the distinction between the early theory and the final conclusion of Zhu Xi, the rejection of ｢Answer to Cai Ji-tong(答蔡季通)｣ in favor of ｢Answer to Zheng Zi-shang(答鄭子上)｣, and the demonstration that the ‘Xing Qi(形氣)’ mentioned in the preface of Zhong Yong Zhang Ju(中庸章句) refers to the body, based on ｢Answer to Chen An-qing(答陳安卿)｣ and others, undoubtedly represent the achievements of this book. On the other hand, it is also true that there were certain limitations in establishing Zhu Xi's final conclusion based on theoretical consistency. Han Won-jin seems to have been aware of these limitations himself. And he appears helpless when confronted with remarks expressing the early theory despite his later writings. Moreover, he might not have been able to effectively criticize those who used this as the basis for their arguments. In this regard, it is difficult to say that the purpose of this book, which was to distinguish between the early theory and the final conclusion and to demonstrate that his own and his school's doctrines are consistent with Zhu Xi's final conclusion, has also been successfully realized. As Han Won-jin mentioned, the decisions regarding what to accept and what to reject from this book will ultimately be left to the reader's judgment.

조선 후기 격물(格物) 독법(讀法)의 다양화 경향을 통해 본 남당 한원진(南塘 韓元震)의 격물설

조선 후기 격물(格物) 독법(讀法)의 다양화 경향을 통해 본 남당 한원진(南塘 韓元震)의 격물설

敏齋 李東允의 문집 현황과 한시 작품 개관

Minjae Lee Dong-yoon(1727~1809) is a writer of ≪Baksochonhwa≫. After he was introduced to the academic world, research has been accumulated, but there is still lack of research on his life, thoughts, and literature. By introducing Lee Dong-yoon’s collection of works, ≪Minjaeyugo≫, this study is aimed to examine the aspects of him as a writer found in his life, works, and Chinese poems and figure out his pursuit in literature. The three books of ≪Minjaeyugo≫ that have been handed down up to now are unfinished manuscripts of which order is not decided. It contains 631 themes and 1,276 works of Chinese poetry written by him from 1757 when he was 30 years old to his later years. About the contents, it includes 49 Seo(書), 3 Seo(序), 3 Gi(記), 17 Jebal(題跋), 45 Jemun(祭文), 7 Gomun(告文), 6 Haengjang(行狀), 8 Haengrok(行錄), 2 Eonhaengrok, 4 Yusa(遺事), 8 Myoji(墓誌), and 25 Japjeo(雜著). This study outlines Lee Dong-yoon’s works of Chinese poetry as 1) the records of daily life grounded on Cheonghan(淸寒) and affection, 2) the life of Anbunjijok (安分知足) and intention for Seonghak(聖學), and 3) preference for creating Old poems written at full length and Chinese poems written in series. First, although Lee Dong-yoon had the reputation of the royal Jeonju Lee’s family, he was in distress through his life for poverty and destitution. Taking ordinary and plain things in everyday life as the themes of his Chinese poems, he pursued simplicity about all sorts of feelings in the world. This is in line with the meaning of ‘Bakso(樸素)’ taken from ≪Jangja(莊子)≫. Second, as an old man in the rural area of the Chungcheong Province, Lee Dong-yoon was immersed into Gyeonghak(經學), solidified his will for Studies for oneself, learning to develop and cultivate oneself, and pursued the life of Anbunjijok(安分知足) by writing Chinese poems. Third, Lee Dong-yoon’s Chinese poems were intensively created in his later years, and concerning the forms, Jangpyeongosi and Yeonjaksi formed a large part. In the Hoseo area, he interacted with Namdang’s disciples and the brothers of Andong Kim’s family deeply, and it seems that this influenced him when he wrote Jangpyeongosi in the 18th century. Lee Dong-yoon learned from Namdang Han Won-jin and Byeonggye Yoon Bong-gu and was greatly influenced by Yoogeundang Kim Gyo-haeng. In fact, ≪Minjaeyugo≫ contains a large number of writings related to that. There are many notable works such as memoirs about his wife and sisters or about Sir Yoogeundang, and this author expects that in-depth studies will be carried out about Lee Dong-yoon’s literature and thoughts afterwards.

인물성동이논쟁을 통해 본 노사(蘆沙) 이일분수설(理一分殊說)의 쟁점과 함의

Ki Jeong-jin is the one of the most famous Neo-Confucian theorists of the late Joseon Dynasty, and he is well known as a proposer of the theory of statements that there is only one Principle although the phenomena vary. He particularly emphasizes the role and authority of Principle. His arguments related to the theory were mainly raised in the work of Napryangsaeui. He, in this work, explicitly reveals the intention to resolve the issues of the nature of humans and things in the Ho-hak debate. But he has never directly participated in the debate. Instead, after his death, some debates over Napryangsaeui arose between his students and Jeon Woo. This paper aims to analyze Ki Jeong-jin’s theory by comparison with the view of Han Wonjin who represents the theory of nature of humans and things in the Ho-hak school, and with the issues of debate between Ki Jeong-jin’s students and Jeon Woo. Particularly, we focused on the matter of relation between ‘completeness and incompleteness’ and ‘original nature’. Through this analysis, we could expand the understanding of the aspects discussed in the theory on the similarities and differences in nature of humans and things, and the significance of Ki Jeong-jin’s theory. Furthermore, in the history of Neo-Confucianism in the Joseon Dynasty, we could shed light on the reconstruction process of the philosophical statements that there is only one Principle but the phenomena vary.

한원진의 인심도심론

This article is to examine The Theory Of The Human Mind And The Moral Mind (人心道心論) in Han Wonjin(韓元震), especially focusing on the interpretation of Xingqi(形氣) in Preface to Commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean(中庸章句序). For this purpose, I arranged the writings of Han Wonjin on the The Human Mind And The Moral Mind in chronological order, divided into three groups according to the contents, and then reviewed for the first group. First, I reviewed Han Wonjin's Treatise on The Human Mind And The Moral Mind(人心道心說) and discussed that the most characteristic feature of his theory is the interpretation of Xingqi. Next, I revealed that his interpretation of Xingqi was the succession and development of the teachings of his teacher, Kwon Sangha(權尙夏). Finally, I looked at how Han WonJin criticized the theory of The Theory Of The Human Mind And The Moral Mind of the scholars of the past, based on his theory, especially the interpretation of Xingqi.

Ho and Rak Group’s Debate on Whether Concious Awareness is Mind or Wisdom’s Function: A Debate between Kim Changhyeop and Yi Hyeonik Versus Yi Hijo, Gwon Sangha and Han Wonjin

Ho and Rak Group’s Debate on Whether Concious Awareness is Mind or Wisdom’s Function: A Debate between Kim Changhyeop and Yi Hyeonik Versus Yi Hijo, Gwon Sangha and Han Wonjin

Yi Gan’s Inclination Toward The Learning Of The Mind-Heart In The 18th Century: A Comparison With Wang Yangming’s Mind-Heart Philosophy

The study of Joseon 朝鮮 Neo-Confucianism has recently given some attention to an inclination toward the Learning of the Mind-Heart (xinxue 心學), and Yi Gan 李柬 (1677–1727) is at the center of this research. He was an outstanding disciple of Gwon Sang-ha 權尙夏 (1641–1721) and a successor to the philosophical spirit of the Yulgok 栗谷 School; he is renowned for initiating the Horak 湖洛 Debate through his controversies with Han Won-jin 韓元震 (1682–1751). In “A Thesis on the Not-Yet-Aroused State,” Yi asserted that the mind-heart is purely good, basing his argument on the doctrine that “li 理 and qi 氣 are actualized as the same entity, and the mind-heart and nature are united as one.” Han Won-jin criticized this assertion as belonging to the Lu-Wang 陸王 School of Neo-Confucianism, and in fact, Yi Gan’s arguments were, in some aspects, consistent with Wang Yangming’s 王陽明 philosophy of the mind-heart. Indisputably, however, Yi Gan was an ardent follower of Zhu Xi’s 朱熹 philosophy. In this case, Yi Gan’s inclination toward the Learning of the Mind-Heart may perhaps be viewed in the tradition of the Learning of the Way (daoxue 道學), which emphasized self-cultivation and practice, a distinct feature of Joseon Neo-Confucianism.

A Study on the “Seven Feelings running across Four Beginnings” of Zhuzi Yulei As an Argument for the Four-Seven Debates Boon-Gae Theory - Focused on the debate on the Yeongnam Toegye School

조선 성리학에서 사단과 칠정에 관한 논의는 퇴계와 고봉 간의 논변 이후 300여 년간 지속되었다. 다산은 사칠논변 시비의 근원이 서로 상이한 이기설로부터 비롯된 것이므로 양자의 주장을 모두 인정해야 한다고 보았다. 이것은 각자 구축한 이론에 근거하여 논변을 전개하는 한 사단과 칠정의 관계에 대한 주자학의 본의를 밝히기가 어렵다는 것을 시사한다. 그러므로 본 논문은 주자의 문헌에 제시된 사단과 칠정의 관계에 주목한다. 특히, 퇴계가 분개설의 근거로 제시한 󰡔주자어류󰡕의 “사단은 리의 발이요, 칠정은 기의 발이다.[四端是理之發, 七情是氣之發.]”가 아닌, 그 이후에 진술된 “칠정은 사단에 나누어 배치될 수 없으며, 칠정은 사단에 대해 횡관하여 지나간다.[但七情不可分配四端, 七情自於四端橫貫過了.]”(이후 ‘횡관설’로 표기)에 집중한다. 이 ‘횡관설’은 퇴계와 고봉 간의 논변에서 직접적으로 언급되지 않았으나, 퇴계 후학들에 의해 분개설의 근거로 꾸준하게 제시되고 논의되었다. 본 논문에서는 영남 퇴계학파인 갈암 이현일, 대산 이상정, 입재 정종로, 사미헌 장복추, 암서 조긍섭을 중심으로 횡관설에 대한 논의를 살펴본다. 그리고 이 논의들을 종합하여 퇴계 분개설의 논거로서 ‘횡관설’의 합당성을 고찰한다. 또한, 논지의 설득력을 강화하기 위해 혼륜의 논리로써 ‘횡관설’을 해석한 극재 신익황과 남당 한원진의 논의도 함께 살펴본다. 본 논문의 목적은 퇴계학이 계승되고 발전하는 데 있어 주자의 횡관설이 중요한 역할을 하고 있음을 확인하는 데 그치는 것이 아니라, 퇴계의 분개설이 주자의 본설에 부합한 이론임을 밝히는 데 있다.The debate on Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings in neo-Confucianism during the Chosun Dynasty had persisted for about more than 300 years after the Four-Seven Debates between Toegye and Ko-Bong. Da-San said that since the controversy of the Four-Seven Debates derived from two different versions of the Li-Qi theory, both should be recognized. This suggests that it is impossible to reveal the true nature, in Zhuzixue, on the relationship between Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings, as long as both arguments are presented based on the theories each of them has been respectively built upon. Thus, this paper focuses on the relationship between Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings that has appeared in the Zhu Xi’s literature. In particular, the focus is on “四端是理之發, 七情是氣之發” of [Zhuzi Yulei] that Toegye presented as the argument for the ‘Boon-Gae(分介)’ theory, rather than the later stated theory of “但七情不可分配四端, 七情自於四端橫貫過了” (hereafter referred to as the ‘Running across(橫貫)’ theory). This ‘Running across(橫貫)’ theory hasn’t been directly mentioned in the debate between Toegye and Ko-Bong, but Toegye’s disciples continued to present it as a basis for the ‘Boon-Gae(分介)’ theory. This paper examines the debates on the ‘Running across(橫貫)’ theory presented by Galam Lee Hyun-il, Daesan Lee Sang-jung, Ipjae Jung Jong-ro, Sami-heon Jang Bok-chu, and Amseo Cho Geung-Sub, who lived in the Yeongnam region and have followed Toegye’s line of scholarship. And, considering the appropriateness of ‘Running across(橫貫)’ theory as the rationale for Toegye s ‘Boon-Gae(分介)’ theory, by compiling the discussions of these people. In addition, the discussion between Geukjjae Shin Ik-hwang and Namdang Han Won-jin, who interpreted ‘Running across(橫貫)’ theory as ‘Honlun(渾淪)’s logic, is considered together. The purpose of this paper is not only to confirm that Zhu Xi’s ‘Running across(橫貫)’ theory plays an important role in succeeding and developing Toegye Studies, but also to reveal that the ‘Boon-Gae(分介)’ theory of Toegye are consistent with the Zhu Xi’s main theory.

Variation of the Concept of Hwa-Yi(華夷) Surrounding Confucius ‘Leaving for Gu-Yi(九夷)’ or ‘Coming to Gu-Yi’

구이(九夷)에 대한 공자의 말은 다양하게 읽혔다. 오랑캐를 배척하는 모습으로 해석되거나 반대로 고귀한 오랑캐를 인용하여 중국을 비판하는 의미로 해석되었다. ‘구이로 떠나겠다’는 말은 후자를 대표한다. 그러나 ‘구이로 떠나는 공자’는 조선에서는 ‘구이에 오시는’ 모습으로 역전되었다. 14세기 이후 지식인들은 ‘기자가 조선을 교화했다’는 옛 전설과 ‘공자가 오시고 싶어했다’는 말을 연결하여, 조선이 오래 전부터 문명화된 곳이었음을 증명하였다. 18세기 노론 학계에서는 또다른 변용이 있었다. 노론의 한 갈래였던 호론에서는 조선을 특수화하는 이론을 구축하였다. 한원진은 공자가 ‘동쪽’으로 오고자 했음을 강조하며 조선만이 문명이 될수 있고, 서북 지역의 오랑캐 – 암묵적으로 만주족 – 들은 원천적으로 문명화될 수 없다고 보았다. 낙론은 달랐다. 서종화는 덕성이란 점에서는 중화와 오랑캐의 구분이 무의미하다고 주장하였다. 홍대용은 오랑캐와 중화의 상호인정을 촉구하였다. 마침내 그는 ‘동쪽으로 떠나는 공자’를 ‘서북으로 떠나는 노자’와 연결하여, 사상과 지역에 구애받지 않는 보편 평등을 강조 하였다.Confucius’ words on Gu-Yi(九夷, nine barbarians in the east) were read variously. They were interpreted as the rejection of barbarians, or on the contrary, as criticism of China by quoting the noble barbarians. The word ‘leaving for Gu-Yi’ represents the latter. However, in Joseon, ‘Confucius who will leave for Gu-Yi’ was reversed to ‘Confucius who will come to Gu-Yi’. Since the 14th century, the intellectuals have proved that Joseon had long been a civilized place by connecting the old legend of ‘Gija(箕子) enlightened Joseon’ with ‘Confucius wanted to come’. In 18th century Noron academia, there were another variations. Horon(湖論, a branch of Noron) built a theory of specializing Joseon. Emphasizing that Confucius’ coming to ‘east’, Han Wonjin argued that only Joseon could be a civilization, and that the barbarians of the north and west - implicitly Manchurians - could not be civilized at all. Nakron(洛論) were different. Seo Jonghwa argued that the distinction between the civilized and barbarian was meaningless in the sense of virtue. Hong Daeyong urged mutual recognition of the civilized and barbarian. Finally he linked ‘Confucius leaving for east’ with ‘Laotzu leaving for north and west’, emphasizing universal equality regardless of thought and region.

A Debate between Human and Animal’s Nature in Kim Changheub and Han Wonjin, and Compare of Yi Gan

A Debate between Human and Animal’s Nature in Kim Changheub and Han Wonjin, and Compare of Yi Gan

A Characteristic of study of Chinese classics involved in Han wonjin’s interpretation of the Golden Mean seen in viewpoint of the culture pluralism

A Characteristic of study of Chinese classics involved in Han wonjin’s interpretation of the Golden Mean seen in viewpoint of the culture pluralism

남당 한원진의 도통(道統) 개념 －정통, 학통의 결합과 정치로의 지향－

남당 한원진의 도통(道統) 개념 －정통, 학통의 결합과 정치로의 지향－

The Humanity Educational Implications and Value of Use of the Han Won-jin Theory of Three-tiered Nature

The Humanity Educational Implications and Value of Use of the Han Won-jin Theory of Three-tiered Nature

Academic Roots of Confucianism and A Spirit of Practice in Hongju Righteous Army - Focused on the inner Relation of Han Won-jin's Thought and Yi Seol and Kim Bok-han's A Spirit of Practice -

Academic Roots of Confucianism and A Spirit of Practice in Hongju Righteous Army - Focused on the inner Relation of Han Won-jin's Thought and Yi Seol and Kim Bok-han's A Spirit of Practice -

A Study on the Structure of Jujaeonrondongeego(朱子言論同異考) Composed in the Order of Jungyong(中庸) And Maengja(孟子) - Focusing on Han Won-jin's Theory of Study -

A Study on the Structure of Jujaeonrondongeego(朱子言論同異考) Composed in the Order of Jungyong(中庸) And Maengja(孟子) - Focusing on Han Won-jin's Theory of Study -

A Study on Debate of Unaroused Mind between Namdang Han Won-jin and Oiam Yi Gan: Centered on the Relationship Mind, Nature and Temperament

A Study on Debate of Unaroused Mind between Namdang Han Won-jin and Oiam Yi Gan: Centered on the Relationship Mind, Nature and Temperament

Implication for Humanity Education of The Debate on the Similarity and Difference between Human nature and Thing s nature

본 논문의 목적은 인성물성동이논변의 인성교육적 함의를 밝히는 데 있다. 한원진의 이론과 이간의 동론은 모두 중층구조―理와 만물, 또는 실재와 외양―를 인정한 것처럼 보이지만, 이론은 보편자를 특수자로 환원시킴으로써 ‘위층 없는 아래층’만을, 동론은 보편자를 특수자와 분리시킴으로써 ‘아래층 없는 위층’만을 말한다는 점에서, 엄격한 의미에서의 중층구조에 미달한다고 말해야 한다. 그때, 동론과 이론은 서양의 보편논쟁에서의 실념론과 유명론이 저지른 오류를 저지를 수밖에 없다. 즉, 실재와 외양의 차이만을 강조하여 말하게 되면 외양이 실재로 나아갈 ‘현실적 가능성’이 차단되며, 실재와 외양의 동일성만을 강조하여 말하게 되면 우리가 나아가야 할 ‘이념적 지향성’이 사라지게 된다. 스피노자 윤리학은 실념론과 유명론 사이의 팽팽한 균형을 유지함으로써 동론과 이론의 제3의 종합으로서의 대안적 관점을 시사한다. 이것은 인성교육이론으로서의 인성물성동이논변이 나아가야 할 전망을 보여준다.The purpose of this study is to reveal the implication for humanity education of The debate on the similarity and difference between human nature and thing s nature (人性物性同異論辨), arose between Han Won-Jin(韓元震) and Yi Gan(李柬) both of whom were disciplines of Kwon Sang-Ha(權尙夏), were the most distinguished and leading scholar in the debate. The debate dealt with two main questions. The one is whether human nature is similar to that of things such as animals and trees, and the other is whether there is good and evil in Unaroused(未發). The central concepts of the debate are Nature(性) and Unaroused(未發). Unaroused(未發) is important concept to clarify the status of Nature(性) in the neo-Confucian theory of human mind-nature(心性論). The point of the debate is whether Unaroused Nature is standard(大本) of emotions(情) which are aroused. Both of them commonly agree that there is the Substance of real world, i. e. One Transcendental Origin (天理), but dissent from each other whether One Origin is similar to Nature. The debate suggests that there can be two kinds of morality, i. e. positive morality and negative morality, and then that two kinds of humanity education can result from them. Positive morality can be regarded as the final aim of moral practice, which is determined before practice and leads practice. But negative morality can be regarded as the ideal form , which is realized imperfectly in our life and must be established as aroused standard through practice. The former humanity education focused moral action to be agreed with norms, the latter focused mind to be agreed with One Origin or God.

Human Value in the Theory on the Nature of human and Things in the Late Joseon Dynasty -Focused on Han Wonjin and Lee Gan-

Human Value in the Theory on the Nature of human and Things in the Late Joseon Dynasty -Focused on Han Wonjin and Lee Gan-

The Characteristics and Political Significance of the Theory of Zhong-He of Namdang Han Wonjin

The Characteristics and Political Significance of the Theory of Zhong-He of Namdang Han Wonjin