철학원전 번역을 통해 본 우리의 근현대 - 개화기부터 1953년 이전까지 ; 50년대까지 영미철학의 수용과 용어의 번역

황필홍 ( Hwang Pil Hong ),이병수 ( Lee Byeong Su ) 한국철학사상연구회 2003 시대와 철학 Vol.14 No.2

영국의 고전경험론과 분석철학, 실용주의를 포함하는 영미철학이 이 땅에 본격적으로 도입되기 시작한 것은 60년대부터다. 그 전까지 영미철학은 독일철학과 구분되는 철학적 사조로서 주목받지 못했다. 이 글은 50년대까지 영미철학적 논의를 전개하고 있는 철학자를 중심으로 그들의 철학적 입장과 그들이 사용한 주요 철학용어를 고찰하는 데 초점을 두었다. 이 글에서 다룬 철학자는 한치진, 박종홍, 김준섭이다. 초창기 철학자들이 일본어 번역에 의존하여 서양철학적 개념을 이해했다는 사실은 번역 과정에서 야기될 수밖에 없는 서양철학적 개념어에 대한 진지한 반성과 사상적 고투가 그들에게 생략되었음을 의미한다. 그러나 식민지 근대화와 철학적 사유의 초기 상황의 제약아래서도, 초창기 철학자들은 자신이 설정한 철학적 과제와 밀접한 철학적 개념어에 관한 한, 분명한 자각을 가지고 있었다. 초창기 철학자들은 일본어 번역에 의지하여 철학했음에도 불구하고 제한된 범위 내에서 주체적 번역의 문제의식을 가지고 있었다. 해방 후 실용주의, 과학철학과 기호논리학 등 영미철학 관련 용어가 철학자마다 다양하게 번역되고 있는데, 이는 번역되는 철학사상이 완전히 소화되지 못한 초기적 단계에 있음을 말해주고 있음과 동시에 해방 이후 서양철학과 직접 접하면서 나름대로 적합한 번역어를 모색한 노력과도 맞닿아 있다. In 1960`s, British and American Philosophy including british classic empiricism, analytic philosophy, pragmatism fully began to spread to Korea. And before that time, British and American Philosophy wasn`t paid attention such a philosophical current as was different from German Philosophy. In this paper, I focussed on the philosophical asserts and terms of early Korean philosophers who had discussed British and American Philosophy from colonization period of Japan Empire to 1950,s. They were Han Chi-Jin, Park Song-Hong and Kim Jun-Sub. The early Korean philosophers approached to and comprehended western philosophical terms through translation of Japanese language. It meant that they lacked sincere reflection and strenuous efforts towards philosophical terms inevitably caused by the process of translation. However, even under the colonial modernization and early situation of philosophical thinking, the early Korean philosophers were sharply conscious of such philosophical terms as deeply concerned with their own philosophical task. Saying in other words, though studying western philosophy through translation of Japanese language, they held subjective attitude about translation within restricted extent. After the Independence from Japan Empire, The terms of British and American Philosophy concerned with pragmatism, philosophy of science, symbolic logic, were variously translated into Korean by every philosopher. This showed that their early reception of British and American Philosophy resulted in insufficient comprehension of translated philosophical thoughts, and that they came into direct contact with western philosophy, not through translation of Japanese language, groped for adequate translation.

사형 처벌의 의미

황필홍 ( Pil Hong Hwang ) 한국윤리학회 2011 倫理硏究 Vol.82 No.1

The pro and con of capital punishment has been hotly controversial in the discussion of legal philosophy. It seems no use in the discussion that pacifists are going to deny death penalty in the name of world peace, human rights, and civilized culture. It`s too emotional. As punishment theorists, utilitarians, either abolitionists or retentionists, are fictitious and factitious both in that they may not be factual in the factual sense and in that they may not be natural in the psychological sense. As opposed to utilitarians, retributionists, being natural as well as factual, are superior in that sense, but in that sense only, to say the least. They are almost helpless against the challenge of what is called (utilitarian) hybrids with some force. Therefore classical retributionism needs to be newly holistically remedied. Holistically extended retributionism demands that punishment as fair retribution to each offender should necessitate punishment with social benefit on the basis of the intimate link between punishment and society. We note that while retribution without social outcome would be empty, utility without retributive justice would be blind. We also note, more importantly, that either case cannot be possible nor desirable. It is time holistic retributionism for death punishment prevails.

로우 케이스 사십년 평가와 전망

황필홍(Pil hong Hwang) 한국아메리카학회 2014 美國學論集 Vol.46 No.2

For four decades Roe v. Wade has signified and marked the first proto-liberal prochoice decision in American abortion history. It says women's right to abortion depends on their right to privacy, which is constitutionally fundamental to every individual. Its key spirit of the case for prochoice, though with some changes, still remains in the historically significant decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The Roe case has shown three noteworthy transitional features in view of the nature of contemporary abortion controversy. First, Roe suggests that when a woman weighs her options for abortion she can consider her sociological right to life in comparison with her fetus's biological right to life. This aspect represents that the issue of abortion mainly concerns the pregnant woman's sociological right to life thereafter. Secondly, as many feminist scholars maintain, a woman's right to privacy in Roe should be understood as a woman's right to autonomy more. In a society with prevalent sexist prejudice and bias, women's right to abortion cannot be genuinely accomplished unless gender equality can be guaranteed at the same time. Women deserve equal protection under the law, i.e., a right to abortion. Thirdly, the right to privacy implicitly necessitates state neutrality. If state represents either prolife or prochoice publicly, and further compels people to respect either one, women are not allowed to have their own view on such personal problems. That is irrational and furthermore unconstitutional. Then what will be the next chapter for abortion rights controversy? The Supreme Court's decision from 1973 (which is still in effect) can be overruled at any point. However, from the point of view of the United States Constitution, which intends to protect a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, the pro-choice decision of Roe v. Wade will continue the legacy of its all-important meaning of women's rights.

인간의 복제 그리고 인간의 개성

황필홍(Pil Hong Hwang) 철학연구회 2003 哲學硏究 Vol.63 No.-

되갚는 정의로서의 사형제

황필홍(Pil Hong Hwang) 철학연구회 2006 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.72

연구논문 : 임신 여성의 재생산 권리

황필홍 ( Pil Hong Hwang ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.3

In this thesis I intend to defend pregnant women`s rational choice on reproductive rights in the abortion controversy. That is to say, abortion, when necessary, should be the ultimate individual`s choice and right based on the liberal abortion rights` concept. I propose to consider the following right-based principles designed to primarily support women`s rights in the question of abortion: (1) The women`s governing-exclusive right principle, (2) the women`s potentiality-plus right principle, (3) the doubly combined principle, and (4) the women`s rationality-best right principle. The first principle suggests that all rights are reserved for women to govern(house) her fetus physically and absolutely. The second principle proposes that the prospect of the fetus to amount to his/her potentiality be outweighed by his/her mother`s potentiality-plus. The third principle suggests that for practical use the first and second principles complement and add on to each other when combined. The last principle proposes that the woman`s rationality be exercised highly and effectively in the abortion decision process. Moreover, the woman`s right to abort can be regarded as her constitutional right to privacy in search of gender equity in our time. Even in reflection of some life value arguments my proposed pro-sociological right to life approach by the woman`s right to her body can hardly be undermined. In the case of abortion the woman`s right to decide prevails.

외설적 표현권의 전의미

황필홍 ( Pil Hong Hwang ) 한국아메리카학회 2012 美國學論集 Vol.44 No.2

For Plato and Aristotle in ancient times a work of art was considered valuable if it could provide good for the society. Plato convicts art because, as he claims, it destroys our psychic harmony, while Aristotle defends art because it cathartically drains away our fear, pity, and violence. In modern times, though, the so-called artistic legitimacy depends largely on individual free choice rather than traditional social values. This does imply that pornographic rights to express outweigh some various social threats allegedly caused by pornographic representations. Further pornographers ought to face feminists` rebel with a cause. Feminists` accusation that sexually explicit materials lead to social gender inequality as well as chilling individual autonomy can not so much be nullified as be incorporated within the supremacy of "freedom to offend" that modern democracies have made. That does by no means suggest, however, that freedom of speech, conceived and protected as a fundamental negative liberty, ignores either societal values or women`s serious critiques of pornographic literature. Thus the concept of liberal pornographic "neutralizability" seeks both free speech and aesthetic utility. And further the right to free speech is ready to accept "the openness of the future" which recognizes the complexity and uncertain nature of human culture including potentially marginal and possibly innovative pornographic arts. Free speech right has to allow room for adventure that will inevitably be a part of such a fluxive and human enterprise. That is, I suppose, what pornographic rights to express should all mean.

구한시대(舊韓時代)의 개화사상(開化思想)의 전개와 한계

황필홍 ( Pil Hong Hwang ) 한국윤리학회 2006 倫理硏究 Vol.61 No.1

개인의 권리와 포르노그라피 (Pornography)

황필홍(Pil Hong Hwang) 철학연구회 2002 哲學硏究 Vol.56 No.-

" 칸트의 의무 - 자신에 대한 의무와 타인에 대한 의무 "

황필홍 한국국민윤리학회 2000 倫理硏究 Vol.45 No.1

칸트의 도덕철학에서 의무개념은 시작이자 끝이다. 의무가 칸트가 건설하고자 하는 최고의 보편적 도덕원리의 기초가 된다는 점에서 출발인 것이며, 그의 도덕형 이상학의 건설이 의무의 완성을 목표한 이상 의무는 동시에 종착이다. 그래서 나는 이 논문에서 칸트의 도덕철학일반을 다루는 것이 아니라 칸트의 의무를 검토한다. 제목이 시사하듯이 특별히 그의 자신에 대한 의무와 타인에 대한 의무를 논의하고 있다. 자신에 대한 의무와 타인에 대한 의무의 이원적 구분과 구조와 본질의 정당성을 비판적으로 분석하는 것을 목표하는 것이다. 첫째, 칸트가 제안하는 의무의 이분법 즉 의무를 자아에 대한 의무와 타인에 대한 의무로 엄격하게 구분하는 그의 도덕철학의 방법론은 우리를 충분히 설득시키기에는 역 부족하다. 둘째, 일단 첫째 질문을 유보해도, 왜 칸트의 도덕철학에서 자아에 대한 의무가 타인에 대한 의무보다 더 중요한가 그리고 더 우선한가 하는 문제를 심각하게 다루지 아니한 것으로 보인다. 이 이분법적 방법으로 선한 의지로 무장되어야 하는 도덕의 주체자인 자신에 대한 의무를 강조한 것은 그의 본래 의도와는 달리 가로세로 취약하다. 셋째, 권리에서 의무가 나온다고 너무 쉽게 강조하고 있는 칸트로서는 권리에 대한 연구는 의무에 대한 그의 열정에 비하면 일천하다. 넷째, 우리의 일반적인 이해와는 다르게, 칸트의 자유와 권리와 의무 따위에 대한 자유주의자로서의 해석은 현대자유주의와는 다소 거리가 있어 과연 그를 자유주의의 원조라고 부르기에 충분한가 하는 의심이 간다. 칸트는 의무숭배주의자이다. 의무를 예찬하였다. 현대정치철학자 샌델(Michael Sandel)은 특히 그를 가리켜 의무에 집착하는 자유주의자(deontological liberal)라고 꼬집었다. 위대한 칸트의 의무론은 나의 몇 가지 비판을 통해서 더욱 단단해 질 수 있다.