精神科 入院의 季節的 變動

吳碩煥,朴助烈,裵大均,金錫柱,韓東大,張貞富,柳志珍 大韓神經精神醫學會 1964 신경정신의학 Vol.3 No.2

(1) Authors studied seasonal fluctuation of psychiatric admission preliminarily, based on data of admission to Pusan area for a 4 year period of 1960-1963, and obtained following impressions. (2) The rate of admission in Pusan area and its seasonal fluctuation appear quite similar to those reported by investigators for European, American and Japanese cities. Thus the admission increases in spring and reaches the maximum in May and then gradually decreases toward the end of year. (3) The data obtained by statistical analysis of the seasonal fluctuation in Pusan area were compared with those of foreign ones in order to observe how to be related to the latitude of the locality. It is the general tendency that the lower latitude showed increase of admission in earlier months of the year than the higher latitude did. (4) It is a impression that the admission of affective psychoses are more sensitive to the climatic factors than the schizophrenics. (5) It is conjured by the authors that the socio-cultural and economic factors should be considered to give an account of the seasonal fluctuation of psychiatric admission.

유방암의 위와 대장전이

유현아,김은영,서민지,정은,조민정,오현진,장지혜,박지찬,이정의,박석영 이화여자대학교 의과학연구소 2014 EMJ (Ewha medical journal) Vol.37 No.2

Gastric metastasis from breast cancer is rare and only six cases have been reported in Korea. Colon metastasis is more rare than gastric metastasis. We report a 63-year-old woman with gastric and colon metastases of invasive lobular carcinoma of breast. She was diagnosed as right breast cancer, received right modified radical mastectomy 10 years ago and has been treated with chemotherapy and hormone therapy. Investigating for melena and a small caliber of stool, we found gastric and colon metastases. The diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer was made through gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry staining. We report a case with gastric and colon metastases from breast cancer and a review of the associated six case reports in Korea.

Comparative Untargeted Metabolomic Analyses of the Commercial Soybean Seeds (Glycine max L.)

Oh Suk Yu,Seon-Woo Oh,Sang-Gu Lee,Soo-Yun Park,Hyoun-Min Park,Yun-Young Kang,Myeong Ji Kim,Eun-Ha Kim 한국식품영양과학회 2022 한국식품영양과학회 학술대회발표집 Vol.2022 No.10

[지상18]The protective roles of gliotoxin on TNBS-induced colitis in mice

Yu-Rim Kim,Chul Kim,Kyung-Suk Kim,Sang Chul Kim,Jin Oh Kim,Jeong Re Lee,Heung Jae Lee,Deok-Hwa Choi,Jung-Taek Oh,Gang-Deuk Kim,Hye-Won Kim,Yeun-Tai Chung,Min-Kyu Choi,Jay-Min Oh 대한체질인류학회 2004 대한체질인류학회 학술대회 연제 초록 Vol.47 No.-

성화상 논쟁과 동방 정교회의 미학

오유석 ( Yu Suk Oh ) 기독교학문연구회 2006 신앙과 학문 Vol.11 No.2

히에로뉘무스의 에스겔서 주석에 있어 synteresis(syneidesis), scintilla conscientiae 그리고 conscientia -네 동물에 대한 해석을 중심으로-

오유석 ( Oh Yu-suk ) 한국기독교철학회 2023 기독교철학 Vol.38 No.-

This paper aims to analyze the meaning and implication of four animals, synteresis, scintilla conscientiae and conscientia in Jerome’s commentary on Ezekiel, in the context of thoughts of the Early Church (i.e. Platonism, Gnosticism, Early Church Fathers’ theory of the soul). Later commentators including Schoolmen caused a lot of confusion, mistaking the view that Jerome wants to criticize for Jerome’s own view. Looking closely through related literatures, we will get the following conclusions: 1. ‘Those who follow the foolish wisdom of philosophers’ are Origen, Gregory of Nazienzus or those who follow their views on human being. Jerome criticizes them, in that their views are based not on the teaching of the Apostles but on the foolish wisdom of the Greek sages. 2. ‘Those who follow the foolish wisdom of philosophers’ maintain that the spark of conscience or the eagle which is not mixed up with the parts of the soul corrects their errors. In contrast, according to Jerome, to pneuma tou anthropou or conscientiae spiritus is a gift from God which can be deprived of. That is the reason why conscience is cast down in some people. In this respect, Schoolmen’s view that distinguishes infallible synderesis from fallible conscientia, is based on a misunderstanding of Jerome’s intention. Jerome did not distinguish synderesis from conscientia. 3. According to Jerome, the tripartite view that human being is a composite of three distinct components (body, spirit and the soul) corresponds to teaching of the Bible. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that to pneuma tou anthropou can be extinguished through human vice. In Jerome’s thought, human conscience is God’s gift that can be taken away. And yet, ‘those who follow the foolish wisdom of philosophers’ forgot that fact, mistaking human spirit (or conscience) for infallible God himself.

세계시민주의의 기원과 의미

오유석(yu-suk oh) 한국도덕윤리과교육학회 2013 도덕윤리과교육 Vol.- No.41

최근 한국사회에서는 세계시민주의가 주요한 논의 대상이 되었으며, 이미 세계시민주의는 한국 교육의 주요한 목표 중 하나로 자리 잡고 있다. 하지만 우리 사회가 추구하는 세계시민 주의가 구체적으로 어떤 것인지는 여전히 불분명하다. 본 논문은 세계시민주의가 헬레니즘시 대에 어떻게 등장했고 어떤 의미로 사용되었음을 밝힘으로써 우리 사회가 추구하는 세계시민 주의에 관한 시사점을 제시하고자 한다. 헬레니즘 세계시민주의는 대체로 다섯 가지로 분류할 수 있다. 오늘날 한국교육이 인류사회 의 세계시민임과 동시에 한국이라는 특정한 국가시민이라는 정체성을 함께 추구한다는 점에 서, 우리 교육이 추구하는 세계시민주의는 로마시대 스토아학파의 세계시민주의와 유사하다. 하지만 스토아 세계시민주의는 우주가 이성적 원리에 의해 생성되었다는 이성주의 형이상학에 기초해 있다는 점에서 신빙성이 의문시되며, 개인과 공동체 그리고 인류 일반의 관계를 하나 의 동심원적 구조로 간주했다는 점에서 오늘날 다양한 공동체의 다중적 동심원 구조를 설명하 지 못한다. 따라서 철저한 합리주의에 기반한 스토아학파의 일원적 세계시민주의는 복수의 공동체에 도덕적 가치를 부여하는 다원적 세계시민주의로 대체되어야 할 듯하다. Recently, cosmopolitanism has become major object of discussion in Korean society. Furthermore, it is already one of main targets of Korean education. Nevertheless, it is unclear what exactly is the cosmopolitanism we pursue. This paper tries to raise a question about the meaning of cosmopolitanism we are after, analyzing the origin and various meanings of cosmopolitanism in the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic cosmopolitanism can be classified as five categories. The cosmopolitanism in Korean education is similar to cosmopolitanism of Roman Stoics, as far as Korean education pursues not only a cosmopolitan ideal but also the specific identity of Korean society. But Stoic cosmopolitanism fails to persuade us in that it is based on the metaphysical assumption that the universe is created by rational principle. Moreover, Stoic cosmopolitanism cannot explain multi-centric circles of modern world, because it regards the relation among individual human being, nation and humanity as co-centric circles. Finally, we have to replace the monistic cosmopolitanism of Stoics based entirely on rationality with a pluralistic cosmopolitanism that grants moral values to various human communities.

알렉산드리아의 필론에 있어 희랍적 paideia와 유대적 paideia

오유석 ( Oh Yu-suk ) 서강대학교 철학연구소 2019 철학논집 Vol.58 No.-

본 논문은 알렉산드리아의 필론이 당시 디아스포라 유대인의 위기에 대해 어떤 해결방안을 제시했는지 해명하는 것을 목표로 한다. enkyklios paideia, philosophia, nomos 등 주요개념의 의미를 분석함으로써, 우리는 다음 결론을 얻게 된다. ① 필론은 알렉산드리아의 유대공동체가 이집트 원주민이나 로마의 시민들과 평화롭게 공존할 방안을 모색했다. 이를 위해 그는 자연의 법과 사회 규범, 희랍 철학과 유대 율법 사이의 조화를 추구했다. ② 또한 필론은 핍박에 직면해서 배교하려는 유혹을 받았던 유대인들에게 율법 준수의 필요성을 피력하는 동시에, 유대교를 조롱, 비난, 폄하하는 이방인들에게 율법이 자연의 법과 상응하는 세계시민의 생활지침임(즉 모세율법을 지키는 자야말로 세계시민임)을 증명하고자 했다. ③ 희랍적 paideia와 유대적 paideia를 조화하고자 한 필론의 시도가 성공적이었는지는 의문이지만, 필론의 방법론이 초대 교회 교부들에게 수용되어 기독교를 변증하고 이성과 신앙의 관계를 설명하는 데 사용되었음은 의심의 여지가 없다. This paper aims to explain how Philo of Alexandria tried to solve the problem of Jewish Diaspora. Analyzing the meaning of key terms as enkyklios paideia, philosophia, nomos, we will arrive at the following conclusions: ① Philo wanted Jewish Community of Alexandria to live peacefully with Egyptian natives and Roman citizens. That’s why he sought harmony between natural law and social contract as well as Greek philosophy and Jewish law. ② While Philo persuaded Jewish Community facing the temptation of apostacy into the necessity of the observance of Mosaic Law, he tried also to show that Mosaic Law is the cosmopolitan way of life that corresponds to natural law. ③ It is questionable whether Philo’s attempt to harmonize Greek paideia with Jewish paideia was successful. Nevertheless it is undeniable that his method was accepted and utilized a means for defending Christian doctrines and explaining the relation between reason and faith by Early Church Fathers.

아우구스티누스의 우정론: “이미”와 “아직”의 관점에서

오유석 ( Oh Yu-suk ) 한국기독교철학회 2022 기독교철학 Vol.35 No.-

이 논문은 아우구스티누스가 희랍 로마의 우정론을 어떻게 기독교적 관점에서 비판적으로 수용했으며, 아우구스티누스의 기독교적 우정론이 어떤 신학적 의의를 가지는지 논하는 것을 목표로 한다. 우리는 아우구스티누스의 우정론을 우정의 창조-타락-구속-완성의 관점에서 다루고자 한다. 고전적 우정론에 따르면 우정은 덕에 기초하며, 우정은 본질적으로 선한 사람들의 관계에서 성립한다. 반면 아우구스티누스는 어떻게 우정이 행위자의 자유를 제약하고 죄악을 부추기는지 폭로한다. 우정은 본래 나쁜 것이 아니었지만, 타락 이후의 우정은 악의 전초기지로 전락하고 말았다는 것이다. 본래 우정은 본래 창조섭리에 따른 것이며 최초의 인류는 서로 교제하고 평화롭게 지내도록 창조되었다. 즉 우정은 아담과 하와의 사랑에서 시작해서 가족 구성원과 다른 사람들에게로 확대된다. 하지만 사람들 사이의 친애와 우정의 끈은 아담의 타락으로 인해 끊어졌다. 이 때문에 인간은 본성상 사회적 존재이지만 죄와 타락으로 인해 반사회적 행동을 저지르기도 하며, 친구들 사이의 우정은 덕을 위한 우정이 아니라 악을 위한 우정으로 전락하기도 한다. 더구나 영원히 지속될 것 같은 우정도 죽음이라는 장벽에 가로막혀 허무하게 끝나기도 한다. 하지만 아우구스티누스는 세상의 헛된 우정은 하나님에 대한 간음인 반면, 진정한 우정은 하나님의 도성이라는 관점에서만 성립 가능하다고 생각한다. 두 우정 사이의 간극을 메워주는 것이 바로 그리스도의 사랑이며, 하나님의 아들이신 그리스도는 죄인을 위해 십자가를 대신 지고 죽으심으로써 우리의 참된 친구가 되셨다. 이로써 그리스도는 인간을 죄와 사망의 종에서 하나님의 친구로 탈바꿈시켰다. 이렇게 볼 때 아우구스티누스에 있어서 참된 우정이란 희랍 로마 철학자들이 주장하듯 함께 덕을 추구하는 우정이 아니라 그리스도를 닮아 가는 것이다. 아우구스티누스는 우정이 소수의 사람에게만 국한되어서는 안되며, 모든 사람에게까지 미쳐야 한다고 생각했다. 우정을 이웃사랑으로 확장한 것이다. 물론 지상의 삶이 완전치 않은 것처럼 지상의 우정도 완전하지 않으며 현실적으로 우리는 모든 사람과 친구가 되기 어렵다. 하지만 아우구스티누스는 천국에서 모든 영혼이 완전한 평화와 우정을 누리면서, 같은 것을 바라고 사랑하게 될 것이라고 기대한다. 즉 천국에서는 모든 영혼이 서로 친구가 될 것이다. 그렇다고 해서 절친한 친구들과의 우정이 폐기되는 것은 아니다. 오히려 우리가 참된 기독교적 사랑으로 친구와 연합한다면 우정은 죽음을 이길 것이고 언젠가 천국에서 온전해질 것이다. 거기에는 오직 친구만이 존재할 것이며, 우리는 하나님과 천사들 뿐 아니라 절친한 친구들과도 참된 우정을 나눌 것이다. 이처럼 우리가 지상에서 누리는 우정이 미래에 천국에서 누릴 완전한 우정의 모형 또는 전조라는 점에서, 우리는 아우구스티누스의 기독교적 우정론을 “이미”와 “아직”(already but not yet)의 우정론이라고 규정할 수 있을 것이다. This paper aims to explain how Augustine criticizes the classical theories of friendship from a christian point of view, and what theological significance Augustine’s theory of friendship has. I will analyze it from the light of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation. According to the classical Greek-Roman theory of friendship, (true) friendship is based on virtue and obtains only among the good. On the contrary, Augustine discloses how friendship constricts our freedom and leads us to sin. Initially friendship was not bad. But friendship after the Fall became the outpost of sin. Augustine thinks that friendship begins in the family. According to him, the love between husband and wife (i.e. Adam and Eve) is the beginning of the friendly love that should permeate all of society. Nevertheless, the peace and harmony of friendship was broken after the Fall of Adam. Therefore there is nothing so social by nature and so anti-social by sin as a human being. Furthermore, friendship sometimes fosters vices rather than virtues, while friendship seemingly endless halts abruptly because of death of friends. But Augustine contends that friendship can be true only in light of the Kingdom of God, while the friendship of this world is fornication against God. The Son of God deigned to become our friend by laying his own life down out of love for the lost. So he changed man from servant to friend, enabling him to love God and neighbors. Then true friendship according to Augustine is not the virtue-pursuing friendship as the Greek-Roman philosophers say, but becoming more like Christ. Augustine thinks that a Christian should love a few men reciprocally but extend his love as far as possible to neighbors, including non- Christians, enemies. According to Augustine, love must not only be mutual but should extend beyond a few friends, for ultimately it must embrace all the members of the City of God. Certainly, in the earthly city we cannot be friends with all men, because friendship here is not perfect. Nevertheless, Augustine hopes that friendship will find its perfection in Heaven. In Heaven, one will not have to relegate friendship to only a few, because all earthly constraints will cease. Therefore, in God’s Kingdom all will be friends united with Christ. On the other hand, reciprocal love between a few friends is not discarded. If we are united to our friend with a truly Christian love, that friendship will not only survive death but actually reach fulfillment in Heaven, where there are no enemies, only friends, and where we will have God, angels as our friends as well as our close friends. Therefore, we can call Augustine’s theory of friendship as that of “already but not yet”, in as much as friendship in this life, imperfect and uncertain though they be, is a foreshadowing of the true unity and intimacy to come in Heaven.

스토아 학파에 있어서 진리의 기준

오유석 ( Yu Suk Oh ) 부산외국어대학교 지중해연구소 2009 지중해지역연구 Vol.11 No.2

The major epistemological debate between the Hellenistic philosophers was on the question of the criterion of truth. The primary object of my discussion is to answer the following questions as regards the Stoic criterion of truth. 1) What is the Stoic criterion of truth? 2) Is the Stoic criterion able to be accepted as a genuine criterion of truth? Analyzing debate on the criterion we can get two conclusions. First, according to the Stoics the criterion of truth is generically (kata genos) a cognitive impression(kataleptike phantasia), which is defined as an impression that comes from what is, is imprinted and impressed in exact accordance with what is, and is such that an impression of this kind could not come about from what is not. The reason why the Stoics defined the cognitive impression as criterion of truth is that in indirect way it guarantees the truth of all other propositions, giving rise to the common conceptions and becoming the foundation of every human investigation. So it is only through cognitive impressions that we have any knowledge of what is true or not. Although some scholars maintain that about the criterion Chrysippus disagreed with Zeno who defined the criterion as a cognition(katalepsis), in my opinion Chrysippus seemed to clear some vague points of Zeno. Therefore the Stoic criterion of truth which satisfies both correspondence and coherence is cognitive impression. Second, the criterion of truth should be true, requiring no more proof. That is why the Stoics maintained that cognitive impressions with the right kind of history are clear and by themselves different from all other impressions. But the Sceptics tried to show that there are impressions which have all the supposed characteristics of cognitive impressions but nevertheless are false. They contend that the so-called criterion of truth is not means for judging truth and falsehood, but a plausible criterion at best. On the other hand, the criterion of the Stoics is rather "by which" the existence and the truth of a state of affairs come to be known. Therefore sometimes ordinary people cannot distinguish cognitive impressions from abnormal impressions, because they cannot systemize and justify their cognitive impressions. Finally only the sage can justify and use properly cognitive impressions as criterion of truth, although cognitive impressions appear clear and distinct to all human beings.