미발과 그 공부에 관한 정조와 정약용의 문답 연구 - 호락논쟁과 관련하여 -

이종우 ( Yi Jong-woo ) 사단법인 퇴계학부산연구원 2023 퇴계학논총 Vol.41 No.-

正朝는 朱熹가 聖人과 衆人의 未發이 같다고 말하기도 하고 다르다고 말하기도 한 것에 대하여 일관적이지 않은 모순이라고 여겨 정약용에게 질의했다. 이것은 호락논쟁의 쟁점이었는데 성인의 미발은 항상 中이지만 중인의 미발은 不中이면서도 중일 때도 있다고 한다. 이 때문에 성인과 중인의 미발은 같기도 하고, 다르기도 하다는 것이다. 정조의 질의에 대하여 정약용은 미발은 중인에게 없고, 성인에게만 있다고 답변하였다. 또한 주희는 미발을 復卦라고 말하기도 하고, 坤卦라고 말하기도 했는데 이에 대해서도 정조는 주희의 말이 일관적이지 않은 모순이라고 생각하여 어떤 것이 주희의 定論인지 丁若鏞에게 질의했다. 이것도 湖洛논쟁의 쟁점이었다 정조의 질의에 대하여 정약용은 곤괘라고 답변하였고, 그것은 洛學 李顯益의 주장과 비슷하였다. 하지만 정약용은 복괘와 곤괘를 미발의 중으로 설명하는 것은 옳지 않다고 여겼는데 왜냐하면 괘는 『周易』, 중과 和는 『中庸』에 나오는 용어로서 반드시 서로 일치하지 않기 때문이다. 그것이 李顯益과 달랐고, 주희 뿐만 아니라 정조에 대해서도 비판했다는 의미가 내포되어 있다. 또한 주희는 미발시 공부에 대해서도 필요하다고 말하기도 하고, 가능하지 않다고 말하기도 했는데 이에 대하여 정조는 어떤 것이 정론인지 정약용에게 질의했다. 이것도 호락논쟁의 쟁점이었는데 이현익은 미발이란 최상의 경지이기 때문에 그 공부가 가능하지 않고 靜의 상태에서 필요한 공부라고 주장한 반면에 朴弼周는 미발시 공부는 필요하다고 주장하였고, 당시 낙학의 종장 金昌翕은 박필주를 지지하면서 이현익을 비판하였다. 이에 대하여 湖學의 한원진은 김창흡을 지지하면서 이현익을 비판하였고, 그것이 주목할 만하다. 정조의 질의에 대하여 정약용은 미발시 공부는 필요하다고 주장하였고 그 공부를 愼獨이라고 말했다. 그것은 주희 뿐만 아니라 호락과 다른 맥락에서 미발시 공부가 필요함을 주장한 것이다. 왜냐하면 주희는 신독을 已發공부로서 여겼기 때문이다. 이러한 정조의 질의와 정약용의 응답에서 전자는 호락논쟁과 주자학에 의심을 통하여 엄밀한 학문을 하였고, 후자는 그들을 넘어서 새로운 지평을 열었다고 할 수 있다. King Jeongjo regarded Zhu Xi’s mentions, the Not-Yet Aroused State in Mind of sage and ordinary person is the same or not, as contradiction. This was a controversial issue in Horak debate. That of sage always is equilibrium, whereas ordinary person equilibrium or non-equilibrium, according to Horak scholars. To King Jeongjo’s inquiry, Jeong Yakyong responded only sage has the Not-Yet Aroused State in Mind, whereas the ordinary person not so. Zhu Xi’s the Not-Yet Aroused State in Mind has been described Fuqua (復卦) or Kunqua (坤卦). King Jeongjo also regarded the descriptions of Zhu Xi as contradiction. This also was one of main issues in Horak Debate. At the time, Yi Hyeonik, a Rak scholar, claimed the State is Kunqua, not Fuqua, and the former is a decided theory in Zhu Xi’s latter years. By contrast, Gwon Sangha and Han Wonjin, a Ho scholar, criticized Yi’s claim, arguing it is not Kunqua but Fuqua. To King Jeongjo’s inquiry, Jeong Yakyong responded it is Kunqua, not Fuqua. This is similar to Yi’s claim. However, he argued the State cannot be described the Kunqua or Fuquau, because the terms are the different Confucian classics. This is different from Yi, and implies criticism of Zhu Xi and King Jeongjo. Also, Zhu Xi said the need self-cultivation in the State or not. For that matter, King Jeongjo inquired which to be a decided theory in Zhu Xi’s latter years. He regarded those of Zhu Xi as contradiction. This also was a main issue in the Horak Debate. At the time, Yi Hyeonik’s claim was not to need self-cultivation in the State because the State is the highest stage. By contrast, Park Pilju’s claim was to need self-cultivation in the State. About their debate, Kim Changhueup supported Park’s claim, criticizing Yi’s. Also, Han Wonjin supported Kim’s claim, criticizing Yi’s. In response to the inquiry of King Jeongjo, Jeong Yakyong’s claim is the need of self-cultivation in the State, and this is “watchful over oneself when one is alone”(愼獨 shendu). The need of self-cultivation in the State is similar to Park and Kim’s claim but self-cultivation as the Shendu is different from. This implies crticism of King Jeongjo’s mention and followed Zhu Xi. In the debate of King Jeongjo and Jeong Yakyong, the former sought an accurte study through criticism of Horak debate and Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism, whereas the latter created a new horizon beyond them.

李震相의 王守仁 비판에서 나타난 양자의 차이점 연구

이종우(Yi, Jong-Woo) 서울대학교 철학사상연구소 2012 철학사상 Vol.46 No.-

寒洲 李震相은 王守仁의 心卽理를 비판하면서도 오히려 心卽理를 주장한다. 心卽理說의 기초인 理氣說에서 둘의 차이점이 명확하게 나타난다. 李震相은 理가 動靜의 주체이고 氣는 그것을 돕는 것이라고 하지만, 王守仁은 理가 條理이고 氣는 운용이라고 말한다. 李震相은 王守仁에 대하여 理는 가지이고 氣가 줄기라고 해석하면서 理氣一物에 근거한 栗谷學派의 心卽氣說 같다고 비판한다. 李震相은 理는 主體이고 氣는 補助, 王守仁은 理와 氣를 條理와 運用의 관계라고 여긴 점이 다르다. 心과 사물의 관계에 대해서도 李震相은 心과 사물 모두 理의 내재를 주장하면서 王守仁에 대하여 心 밖의 사물의 존재를 부정했다고 비판한다. 하지만 王守仁은 심 밖의 사물을 부정한 것이 아니라 物에 대하여 心이 사물을 인식한 상태라는 의미라고 말한다. 따라서 인간의 良知가 사물을 인식하였을 때 사물의 理가 존재한다는 것이다. 인간이 인식하지 않는다면 사물에 理가 존재하는 것이 아니라는 것이다. 그러나 李震相은 인간이 사물을 인식과 관계없이 양쪽에 모두 理가 내재되어 있다고 생각한 것이 王守仁과 다른 점이다. 이로 미루어 보았을 때 李震相의 心卽理說은 그 중심이 理이지만, 王守仁은 良知라는 것이 다른 점이다. 결국 王守仁은 朱子學에서 벗어나 良知에 입각한 心學인 반면에 李震相은 朱子學의 체계인 理氣說에 입각한 理學이라는 점이 다르다. The critic Hanchu Yi Chinsang argued against the ‘mind is principle(li, 理)’ concept espoused by Wang Shouren. The concept of the ‘mind is principle’’s basis on ‘principle and material force(chi, 氣)’ appears as a clear difference between their views. Yi Chinsang interpreted that li is the subject of movement and chi assists li; however, Wang Shouren interpreted that li is a principle and chi operates it. Yi Chinsang criticized Wang Shouren because he interpreted Wang Shouren’s belief that li acts as a stem and chi acts as a branch. He criticized Wang Shouren because he interpreted that the theory of Wang Shouren is the same as the idea that the ‘mind is material force’, which is based on the ‘li and chi is one’ idea of the Yukok school. Yi Chinsang interpreted that li is the main agent and chi is its assistant. But Wang Shouren interpreted that li is a principle and chi is an operation. Yi Chinsang also criticized Wang Shouren’s view of the relationship between the mind and things. Yi Chinsang asserted that the mind and all things are inherent in li and he criticized Wang Shouren’s interpretation that denied the existence of things outside of the mind. However, in actuality, Wang Shouren did not deny the existence of things outside of the mind. Rather, he claimed that the mind is necessary to know what things are. Thus, the li of things is when the intuitive knowledge of humans allows them to know things. If man does not have knowledge about things, then the principle does not exist. However, Yi Chinsang thought that both things and man are inherent in li. Therefore, the concept of li is at the center of Yi Chinsang’s concept of ‘mind is principle’ while Wang Shouren’s theory focuses on intuitive knowledge. Eventually, Wang Shouren’s theory of the mind based intuitive knowledge away from Chu Xi’s, but Yi Chinsang’s theory of li was based on Chu Xi’s theories on li and chi. Keywords: mind is principle(li, 理), intuitive knowledge, there is not a thing outside the mind, theory of mind, theory of principle(li, 理)

이간과 한원진의 논쟁에서 심성의 위(位),시(時)에 관한 연구

이종우 ( Jong Woo Yi ) 한국공자학회 2007 공자학 Vol.14 No.-

Yi Gan asserted that original nature motion made vigor nature. Han Won-Jin assert that original nature indicate principle and vigor nature indicate principle vigor. Yi Gan cognize at time original nature before motion, vigor nature after motion. Han Won-Jin criticize Yi Gan. He cognize in space original nature and vigor nature. So Yi Gan cognize at time as well as situation. Yi Gan assert that intelligence move silence and perception move motion. Han Won-Jin criticize Yi Gan that perception move silence. It is silence after motion, motion after silence. So Yi Gan cognize at time of intelligence and perception, but Han Won-Jin cognize in situation. because perception move in silence and motion. Yi Gan think that saint is center in before motion, but mankind is not center. He think that mankind recover the meek at center. He cognize center and not center at time. Han Won-Jin cognize center and not center in situation. He criticize Yi gan because he not cognize center and not center at time. Yi Gan cognize at time, but he cognize in situation, because time change situation. Han Won-Jin cognize in situation, but he cognize at time, because time change situation. Yi Gan cognize mainly at time, but Han Won-jin mainly in situation.

한국철학 : 한주학파(寒洲學派)와 간재학파(艮齋學派)의 심통성정설(心統性情說) 논쟁과 그 의의

이종우 ( Jong Woo Yi ) 동양철학연구회 2005 동양철학연구 Vol.42 No.-

As regards the theory that Mind encloses Nature and Emotion, Chu-Hsi interpreted the word enclose as either preside or abide. That is, he interpreted enclose as preside when he thought that Mind is Principle, and again enclose as abide when he thought Mind is Vigor. For this reason, a hectic controversy arose between the School of Yi Jin-Sang and the School of Ganjae. The School of Hanju interpreted the word enclose as preside; on the other hand, the School of Ganjae interpreted it as abide. Principle presides over Vigor-therefore, Yi Jin-Sang ascertained that Mind is Principle, Cheon-Woo ascertained that Nature is Principle and Mind is Vigor. According to Yi Jin-Sang, Mind has supremacy and presides over Nature and Emotion, but Cheon-Woo criticised Yi Jin-Sang from his own standpoint that nothing but Nature has supremacy and presides. Therefore, Cheon-Woo ascertained that Mind does not preside over Nature and Emotion but only abides by them. Again, Yi Jin-Sang thought, not only Mind but also Nature and Emotion are Principle, Mind presiding over the others. However, Cheon-Woo thought, Mind is nothing other than Vigor, consequently not presiding over, but merely abiding by, Nature and Emotion. Mind presides over Body and the human being realizes itself through its body-. Following Yi Jin-Sang`s assertion that Mind is Principle, people should simply practice Principle. Hence active practice. On the other hand, Cheon-Woo thinks that Mind cannot preside over Body directly, because Mind does not preside but Nature presides. Only when Mind is strongly anchored in Nature, is the practice of Principle possible. Hence thoughtful practice. As a conclusion, we can say that the controversy between the two Schools results from their different methods of practicing Principle.

담헌 홍대용의 북경방문 이후 화이(華夷)평등과 그 우열의식-『담헌서』의 「의산문답」과 김종후에게 보낸 편지를 중심으로-

이종우 ( Jong Woo Yi ) 한서대학교 동양고전연구소 2015 동방학 Vol.33 No.-

So far, most researchers have asserted that between the Chinese culture has superiority and the Bavarian has inferiority before visiting Beijing of Damhon Hong Daeyong, but equality between both after that. But Hong says both their equality and inequality in customs. He says its inequality before go to Beijing but his thought is changed since had gone there. The both their equality and inequality are in Hong``s saying since had gone there. In Uisanmundap, which have written since had gone Beijing, he says its equality. But he says its inequality in Udapjikjaeso, which have written since had gone there. In Uisanmundap, he don``t decide on Chinese and Bavarian culture whether good culture or not. This do decide on that whether ethic or not. But says on Qing dynasty``s heir style as Bavarian culture. Consequently, two books are different its view. In his mind, are equality and inequality on customs since visited to Beijing. After all, he suppose both their equality and inequality.

정약용의 상제(上帝)와 심(心)의 관계 -인간의 자주지권(自主之權)과 천(天)의 분노와 상선벌악(賞善罰惡)의 관계를 중심으로-

이종우 ( Jong Woo Yi ) 한서대학교 동양고전연구소 2013 동방학 Vol.26 No.-

Tasan Chong-Yagyong(1762-1836, Korean thinker)`s saying sangje(上帝), the supreme being, give the free will to chose from good deeds or the evil(自主之權) to human and he is responsible for his the behaviors. The Tasan`s saying is in Maengjayoui(孟子要義) in 1814, exegetical work about , and the saying was influenced by The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven(天主實義). In this view, he criticized Zhu Xi`s li(理), ultimate entity, because the li is non-feeling, non-authority and human don`t afraid of li. Therefore, he says that since human is afraid of sangje and human can moral conduct. That is, Zhu Xi`s li can`t influence to human. Therefore, he replaced li with sangje as ultimate being. On the other hand, he said that sangje become angry with human, offend sangje by heretical thought. Therefore, jungshin(衆神, spirits), the heavenly officials of sangje, don`t bless to human. The Tasan`s saying is in Nonogogumju(論語古今註), exectical work about Luny?. He wrote that Way of Heaven(天道) give reward and punishment on the good and evil of human. His saying is Maecisopyong(梅氏書平) and Sangsogohun(尙書古訓), exegetical work about Sh?j?ng(書經). In the case, human find blessing from sangje in heaven. The action is worried by Tasan. So, he said that man should find in human`s original mind about sangje. Thus, he said that sangje the ability to choose from good deeds or the evil. In the case, human may do evil deed when profit him. Tasan worried the action. Thus, he said that sangje become angry to evil human and punish to him. He thought that human`s origin mind same sangje. On the wise, I interpret about Tasan`s thought but can even interpret the reverse. Free choice in his saying prerequisite sangje`s reward and punishing. Therefore, the free choice is not free will perfectly. His saying the free will was influenced by The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. The book is one of the most influential classics from the West at the time. Thus, his thought is amalgam of Confucian classics and West Learning.

형수의 간부(姦夫)를 살해한 시동생에 대한 정조의 감형판결과 정약용의 비판: 『논어』·맹자와 관련하여

이종우 ( Yi Jong-woo ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2024 유학연구 Vol.66 No.-

Although murder was punished to death, King Jeongjo's judgement was commutation based on Confucian ethic and Jeong Yakyong critiqued that. This topic is the object of my research because this has not been researched until now. King Jeongjo judged punishment beating with cudgel and exiling for the younger brother-in-law who made the man of commiting adultery with his elder brother's wife die. King Jeongjo considered it an immutable morality which younger brother's loving for elder brother as elder brother's loving for younger brother. King Jeongjo regarded killing the man of commiting adultery with elder brother's wife as loving for elder brother. The reason why King Jeongjo commuted the death penalty even though murder was death penalty was because he regarded adultery as immoral behavior which humans should not do. King Jeongjo referenced the distinction between husband and wife of Mencius. On the judge of King Jeongjo, Jeong Yakyong criticized by basis of the Great Ming Law Books(大明律). If the husband killed the man of commiting adultery with his wife there, he might not been punished, according to the Great Ming Law Books. However, the man who killed the man of commiting adultery was not the husband but his younger brother. Therefore, Jeong Yakyong criticized the judge of King Jeongjo. If they were parents-children relations, he would be commuted. If he killed the adulterous man at the scene of adultery, his sentence could be commuted, according to Jeong Yakyong. Both King Jeongjo and Jeong Yakyong referenced Confucian ethics. King Jeongjo focused on family, whereas Jeong Yakyong focused on committing murder.

MPCE copolymer와 습식 폴리우레탄의 블렌드에 의한 투습방수 나일론 직물의 제반 물성변화에 관한 연구

이종우(Jong-Woo Yi),채애정(Ei-Jung Chae),배진석(Jin-Seok Bae) 한국염색가공학회 2014 韓國染色加工學會誌 Vol.26 No.4

주희의 중과 부중(不中)의 미발과 그 공부의 유무 - 성인과 중인(衆人)에 관련하여 -

이종우 ( Yi Jong Woo ) (사)율곡연구원 2021 율곡학연구 Vol.45 No.-

Zhu Xi said either equilibrium or non-equilibrium of the Not-Yet Aroused State. This Not-Yet Aroused State in equilibrium means the sage, while non-equilibrium of an ordinary person. The ordinary person has non-equilibrium and sometimes equilibrium. Because the Not-Yet Aroused State of sage and the ordinary person essentially is the same, according to Zhu Xi. Therefore, the ordinary person also had equilibrium like the sage in the beginning. The equilibrium means not to be dark sensory, and mind governing nature, meaning original nature. In real life, the ordinary person has not equilibrium but non-equilibrium. Thus, the ordinary person has to self-cultivation, caution and apprehension, in order to be sage. By contrast, Zhu Xi said not to need the self-cultivation in that state, because the state is the highest level and equilibrium. This is the state of the sage’s mind, not that of the ordinary person’s. The ordinary person can reach to the state by self-cultivation.

평포논쟁(坪浦論爭)의 쟁점으로서 유리무기(有理無氣)

이종우 ( Yi Jong-woo ) 한국유교학회 2011 유교사상문화연구 Vol.44 No.-

Yi Jin Sang had analyzed on supreme ultimate birth yang, principle birth force on existence principle and not existence force. He persisted existence principle and not existence force in principle ahead force next time. He had analyzed anteceds heaven and acquire heaven. Yi Jong Gi criticized Yi Jin Sang theory of existence principle and not existence force. He criticized existence and not existence force not analysis birth and die of force. He was influenced Zhu Xi. Although principle is formlessness, he persisted existence principle and not existence force. It certainly not cexistenced. If it was existence, it could an idea. It is not exist. it is idea but it isn't exist.