레비나스의 종교사상에 대한 비판적 성찰

김영한 ( Yung Han Kim ) 한국해석학회 2010 해석학연구 Vol.26 No.-

Levinas understands religion as a relation invoking the other. He views the seat of religion not from a ritual dimension but a relationship to the other. Religion is viewed not as a philosophical representation or understanding but as an invocation to the other, and a personal relationship with the other. Levinas sees the relationship with God as an ethical one. Our relationship with God is an ethical act, not theology. There is no knowledge of God separated from relationship with God. According to Levinas, atheism does not mean there is not God, but one becomes independent of God. It is the condition for religion that a subject emerges through the secularization standing independently out of the sacred. The monotheism purged out of the myth presupposes the atheism. Levinas characterizes religion in the concept of heteronomy which is the core one in the adult religion. A fundamental heteronomy of humanity is conceived out of his being of creature. Human is given by God to his liberty. Asymmetrical relationship of subject to the other is interpreted by the dignity of the other. the other is more than me. I am obliged to substitute him. God as other does never come into I-Thou relationship. He can only be experienced through the third. Therefore, God is not a second personal being but a third personal one. God is not a being which we can face directly, but the one which appears in the relation to the other. The manifestation of face of the other reveals the trace of the one who passed by, the trace of passing by of God. This trace does not make the creator as the one who is present here, but only express his absence. The essence of subject is the otherness. The substitution of subject substituting the other is my redemption for the other. The sacrifice for the other is my sublime duty of subject for the other. The essence of the subject is messiah. A critical reflection on the Levinas` thought of religion is as follows: Levinas uncovered the ethical dimension of the religion, thematized the ethics of other. This is a contribution of his thought ot religion. However, religion can not be reduced into the ethical dimension. Here, lies the limits of his thought of religion. In this thought of other lies the dimension of transcendence which can not be reduced into the ethical dimension. Levinas` thought of religion is dominated by the optimism on human nature.

종교다원주의와 진리에 대한 포스트모던 주장 사이에서의 선교 ― 한국 기독 청년들의 타종교관 연구

윤서태 한국선교신학회 2012 선교신학 Vol.29 No.-

The present study is an investigation of young Korean Protestants’ views of other faiths and how they understand mission and evangelism based on those views. The empirical research shows that a considerable number of young Korean Christians have now embraced pluralistic viewpoint concerning other religions, along with the postmodern relativistic perspective about truth claims. This research concludes that both perspectives weaken the motive of traditional Christian evangelism and mission toward people of other faiths. The empirical research also indicates the urgency to recognize pluralistic and relativistic tendencies among young Korean Protestants in the history of the Korean Protestant Church. In other words, the emerging pluralistic and postmodern viewpoint, which is gaining popularity among young Koreans, is beginning to compete with the dominant traditional Korean Protestant exclusivistic theology of religions. Thus, we are beginning to see the competition between exclusivism and pluralism or relativism (religious and postmodern). An important missional issue regarding exclusivism and pluralism is that both can easily fail to engage people of other faiths. While the exclusivists close their mind and try not to listen to people of other faiths, the pluralists think it unnecessary to share the Christian faith. As a result they both have that the tendency to avoid engaging with the ‘other,’ that is, people of other faiths. In response, the researcher suggests “dialogical evangelism,” with the intention to escape the missional dangers post by both exclusivism and pluralism, and to encourage Christians to engage the ‘others’ in dialogue and love for evangelism. Having taken other faiths into consideration since the 1910 Edinburgh Conference of the World Missionary Conference, many mission thinkers have become involved in how to do missions toward people of other faiths. The dialogical approach to people of other faiths has proved to be a desirable way of doing missions. On the other hand, evangelicals have argued that its ultimate goal should be evangelism. Therefore, integrating the strengths of these two approaches, for the Korean Protestant Church and the new generation of Christians, the researcher suggests dialogical evangelism as the most viable approach to people of other faiths.

종교다원주의와 진리에 대한 포스트모던 주장 사이에서의 선교 : 한국 기독 청년들의 타종교관 연구

윤서태 한국선교신학회 2012 선교신학 Vol.29 No.-

The present study is an investigation of young Korean Protestants’ views of other faiths and how they understand mission and evangelism based on those views. The empirical research shows that a considerable number of young Korean Christians have now embraced pluralistic viewpoint concerning other religions, along with the postmodern relativistic perspective about truth claims. This research concludes that both perspectives weaken the motive of traditional Christian evangelism and mission toward people of other faiths. The empirical research also indicates the urgency to recognize pluralistic and relativistic tendencies among young Korean Protestants in the history of the Korean Protestant Church. In other words, the emerging pluralistic and postmodern viewpoint, which is gaining popularity among young Koreans, is beginning to compete with the dominant traditional Korean Protestant exclusivistic theology of religions. Thus, we are beginning to see the competition between exclusivism and pluralism or relativism (religious and postmodern). An important missional issue regarding exclusivism and pluralism is that both can easily fail to engage people of other faiths. While the exclusivists close their mind and try not to listen to people of other faiths, the pluralists think it unnecessary to share the Christian faith. As a result they both have that the tendency to avoid engaging with the ‘other,’ that is, people of other faiths. In response, the researcher suggests “dialogical evangelism,” with the intention to escape the missional dangers post by both exclusivism and pluralism, and to encourage Christians to engage the ‘others’ in dialogue and love for evangelism. Having taken other faiths into consideration since the 1910 Edinburgh Conference of the World Missionary Conference, many mission thinkers have become involved in how to do missions toward people of other faiths. The dialogical approach to people of other faiths has proved to be a desirable way of doing missions. On the other hand, evangelicals have argued that its ultimate goal should be evangelism. Therefore, integrating the strengths of these two approaches, for the Korean Protestant Church and the new generation of Christians, the researcher suggests dialogical evangelism as the most viable approach to people of other faiths.

한국 사회에서 타자로서의 일본 종교와 타자 멘털리티의 변화

박승길 ( Seung Gil Park ),조성윤 ( Sung Youn Cho ) 한국사회사학회 2005 사회와 역사 Vol.0 No.67

In this paper, we analyzed the process by which Japanese religion is accepted in Korean society focusing on change in its growing pattern. This was done to examine the existence mode of ``the other`` mentality and its change in Korean society. There are 18 sects of Japanese religion in Korea, with the four sects ie, SGI(創價學會), Nichiren Shoshu(日蓮正宗), Tenri-Kyo(天理敎), Seicho-no-ie(生長の家) securing more than 100,000 followers. According to the data from the Statistics Office, the Japanese religion followers are estimated 2.1 million, which accounts for 4.4 per cent of the country population, and for 8.1 per cent of the religious population in the country. This records fourth in terms of number of followers, which follow Buddhism, Protestant Christianity, and Catholics. In Korean society, Japanese religion has persisted to grow while labeled ``the other.`` This can be explained by the fact that certain circumstances under which Japanese religion can permissible into Korean society have been created and that groups open to accept it has been formed. This also indicates that another mentality towards Japan-this being different from negative ``the other`` mentality towards Japanese religion-has been created. During the 1960s, Koreans considered Japan as the evil to deny its existence and the other to detest. However, at the same time it was the other to envy, and the role model to follow in the social development process. During this period, Korean Japanese undertook an important role as a messenger of Japanese religion. However, since the 1990s when Korea became significant in international community and particularly the Korean government allowed the Japanese popular culture to be imported to Korea, the perception that sees Japanese religion as the exclusive other has remarkably weakened. This also changed the way Japanese religion is introduced to Korean society. While the passive way that involves Korean Japanese as a significant messenger has gradually disappeared, missionary works actively organized by the headquarters of Japanese religion has been remarkably enforced. As a result, the sects of Japanese religion in Korea have been reshaped to be a branch with a strong connection to the headquarters. How this affects the domestic religious culture remains to be answered.

로마인과 유대인 : 자기 인식과 타인 인식에 따른 정체성 문제에 대한 소고

박성호 ( Park Sung-Ho ) 21세기기독교사회문화아카데미 2022 신학과 사회 Vol.36 No.4

Do my real self and my appearance in the eyes of others correspond to each other, or are they misunderstood or distorted? How does awareness of others affect self-perception, and how do the two relate to identity? Based on this question, this paper intends to consider the relationship between Romans and Jews and the issue of identity closely related to it in terms of ‘self-perception’ and 'other-perception'. By acknowledging the survivors of the Trojan War as their ancestors, the Romans embraced the Greek tradition, yet ingeniously reinterpreted it to suit their own needs. In the process of their rise to power in the ancient world, they acknowledged the Greek environmental determinism and the inheritance of acquired temperaments to some extent, but chose a pragmatic path not to view non-Romans as inherently inferior. The Jews, who were subordinated to them politically, economically, culturally and socially, were naturally in a 'stipulated' position according to the 'determining power of the dominant culture' they had as rulers. Despite the promise of religious freedom from Rome from the beginning of the imperial period, the reason most of the Jews' views on the Romans were negative was because of the imbalance of power between the two. The Romans' 'self-perception' and the Jews' 'other-perception’ of them correspond to some degree in content and direction. The influence of the latter on the former may not have been significant, but it must have something to do with the way the Romans viewed the Jews. The Jewish ‘self-perception’ is summarized in the words ‘exclusivity’ and ‘specificity’. The Old Testament and Early Jewish Documents testify to this, and specifically, it appeared in the form of the chosen thought and the prohibition of mixed marriage. However, sometimes they crossed the boundaries of exclusivity through kinship with non-Jews, and in order to establish a link with the Greeks who had 'determining power of the ruling culture', they raised their common ancestor Abraham to share their traditions with them. Incorporating into the culture, they also expanded the scope of their identity further. However, in many cases, the Romans defined Jews somewhat one-sidedly and negatively according to their prejudices and stereotypes. Although the Jews' 'self-perception' and the Romans' 'other-perception' of them correspond to some extent, the disproportionate power relationship between the two caused the latter to have a significant impact on the former. And this, in turn, played a big role in the way the Jews viewed the Romans. ‘Self-perception’ and ‘other-perception’ play a decisive role in the problem of identity. This is because confidence in one's own identity depends on how seriously one views, treats, accepts, and exploits other people and cultures. The starting point for this is to seriously recognize both my 'otherness' and the 'otherness' of others.

현대사회에서의 종교 윤리의 역할과 과제

전명수(Chun Myung-soo) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2009 한국학연구 Vol.30 No.-

본고는 현대가 일상문화, 생활문화의 시대라는 점에서 종교 역시 일상이나 생활에 기반한 생활종교로의 방향전환이 요구되고, 이 생활종교는 타자 중심의 종교윤리를 그 이론적 기반으로 삼아야 한다는 점을 규명하기 위해 시도되었다. 이 연구는 생활종교의 이론화작업의 일환으로 특히 현재 한국인의 생활문화에까지 광범위하게 침투되어 있는 부정부패에 초점을 맞추었다. 무엇보다 일상에서 발생하는 여러 가지 부정부패는 착취자와 희생자, 욕망과 순진함의 이중구조로 이루어진다는 점에서 나의 책임과 타자를 위한 윤리는 생활종교에서 긴급하게 그리고 절실하게 요구되는 덕목이다. 이러한 점에서 레비나스(Emmanuel Levinas)의 타자 중심의 윤리학, 주체 책임의 윤리가 현대사회의 여러 문제들을 해결하는 가장 중요한 이론이 될 수 있을 것으로 간주된다. 나와 타자 사아에서 나에 대한 과도한 욕망을 타자에 대한 책임으로 바꾸어 나와 타자의 관계를 재정립해야 한다는 것으로, 본고는 이러한 종교 윤리가 단순히 종교 신자들의 삶뿐만 아니라 부정부패와 같은 현대사회의 여러 문제들을 해결하는 데에도 크게 기여할 수 있다는 점을 보여준다. This paper was attempted to examine that religion today is necessary for changing the direction toward 'life religion' based upon our everyday life since now it is time of daily life culture, and that life religion requires the other-centered religious ethics as its theoretical foundation. Especially this study focused, as a part of theorization of life religion, upon injustice and corruption penetrated and spreaded into recent life culture extensively and deeply. The other-centered ethics proposed by Emmanuel Levinas is virtue needed urgently to life religion in that various injustice and corruptions show the dual structure of greedy exploiters on the one side and innocent victims on the other. Levinas equates the neighbor with the responsibility, and makes it certain that the excessive desires of self should be replaced with responsibility for others. Accordingly the ethics demands reestablishment of the relationship between self and the other. The believers have been receiving various help and consideration from religion, and it is now their turn to make effort to challenge injustice and corruption with ethics of responsibility for others. It's author's standpoint that the other-centered ethics can be one of the most important ways to solve many other social issues besides corruption.

특집 : 다문화 담론과 불교정신 -초기불전을 중심으로-

김준호 ( Jun Ho Kim ) 동아시아불교문화학회 2012 동아시아불교문화 Vol.10 No.-

이 글은 타문화와 접촉했을 때 보여준 붓다의 태도에 대한 경증(經證)을 초기불전에서 찾아내려는 작업을 중심으로 삼은 것이다. 다문화 사회와 불교를 직접적으로 관련시켜 연구하려면 붓다 당시 고대 인도의 국가들에서 이루어진 문화의 수용 등이 입체적으로 조망될 필요가 있겠지만, 여기서는 초기불전에 나타난 타종교인과의 대면에서 붓다가 취한 태도에 초점을 맞추었다. 곧, 불교가 자신의 정체성을 확보하려는 노력 과정 그리고 타종교의 사상과 문화를 접할 때에 보여준 붓다의 태도를 분석해보는 것이다. 이 작업을 통해 드러난 불교 정신을 통해 다문화 사회에서 필요한 관점과 불교적 역할을 모색해보는 것이 이 글의 요지이다. 초기불교 경전에서 거듭 비판되고 있는 것은 특정한 하나의 견해에 대해 집착하여, 그 하나의 견해가 ``절대적으로 옳다``는 신념으로 무장되어 다른 쪽의 주장을 적대시하는 태도로 드러난다. 즉, 타종교 및 사상 그리고 문화적 차이로 인해 충돌이 발생했을 때 그 어느 하나의 편에 서서 옹호하거나 논박하는 것이 아니라 그 견해에 집착하는 태도를 문제 삼는 데 그 특징이 있다고 하겠다. 붓다는 교의의 측면에서나 타종교인을 대하는 태도에서도 특정한 하나의 주장이나 견해에 치우치지 않는 유연하고도 관용적인 태도를 견지하였던 것이다. 다시 말하면 ``이치에 맞고 유익한 결과를 가져오는 것``이라면, 그 어떤 문화라 할지라도 망설임 없이 받아들였다는 사실의 논증을 시도하였다. The research tries to search for the light proof in the early Buddhist Scriptures on the Buddha`s attitude in touching with other cultures. In order to do research the direct relationships between multicultural societies and Buddhism, we should illuminate into some cultural receptions of ancient Indian countries from all angles, but the research has focused on the Buddha`s attitude in getting touch with other religious people. That is to say, the research tries to analyze Buddha`s attitudes on the effort of establishing Buddhist identity and the thoughts of other religions. The topic of the study is to be in search of the Buddhist roles and essential perspectives, which would be crucial in the age of multicultural society. What was criticized repeatedly in the ancient Buddhist canons is that one will adhere to a certain opinion, believe that opinion in truth absolutely, and take hostile stance against other insists. In other words, in colliding with other cultures, thoughts, and cultural differences, one should not defend his opinion and argue against other ones but adhere to his own opinion, which can be serious problem. We should pay attention to Buddha`s attitude in that he took stance of the flexible and tolerant attitude on the aspects of Buddhist principles and other religions without falling into certain insists and opinions. He didn`t hesitate to demonstrate that we should receive any cultures, if the other cultures could bring about the effect reasonable and beneficient.

막스 호르크하이머(Max Horkheimer)의 후기철학에 대한 고찰: ‘아주 다른 것에 대한 동경(憧憬)’ 개념을 중심으로

전석환 동국대학교 동서사상연구소 2022 철학·사상·문화 Vol.- No.40

The early philosophy of Max Horkheimer in the 1930s could be characterized as a materialist Marxist based on a strong empiricism and a social critique. But, why was his later philosophy not understood without mentioning religion or transcendence, especially after the 1960s? Horkheimer's specific remarks about transcendence in a broadcast interview in 1971 called 'The Longing for the entirely Others,' were enough to attract public attention. As a result, it is a well-known fact that he received more criticism than positive reviews. In this paper, on the premise that there is a need for a special discussion on Horkheimer's later thought, which may seem contradictory, it is developed through the following process. First, a structural understanding of Horkheimer's later thought, centering on the statement 'The Longing for the entirely Others,', is sought. In other words, it attempts to shed light on the process leading up to the statement of ‘The Longing for the entirely Others’. Second, evaluations of various perspectives on Horkheimer's later thought centering on the statement of 'The Longing for the entirely Others,' are introduced, and critical discussions on such evaluations are developed. Third, the possibility of theoretical practice and application of the later Horkheimer's philosophy based on the statement of 'The Longing for the entirely Others,' is discussed. This thesis develops from the perspective of looking at Horkheimer's philosophy into three stages: the early stage from 1930 to 1941, the middle stage from 1942 to 1947, and the period from 1948 to 1970, until later stage. 1930년대 막스 호르크하이머(Max Horkheimer) 초기철학은 강력한 경험론에 기초한 유물론적 마르크스주의자로 특징지울 수 있었다. 그러나 그의 후기철학은 종교 혹은 초월성을 언급하지 않으면 이해되지 않았던 이유는 과연 무엇인가? 본 논문에서는 호르크하이머의 후기사상에 대한 특별한 논의의 필요성이 있다는 전제로 다음과 같은 과정을 통해 전개된다. 첫째, ‘아주 다른 것에 대한 동경’ 언명을 중심으로 한 호르크하이머의 후기사상에 대한 구조적인 이해를 도모한다. 둘째, ‘아주 다른 것에 대한 동경’이라는 언명을 중심으로 한 호르크하이머의 후기사상에 대한 여러 관점들의 평가들을 소개하고, 그 비판적 논의를 전개한다. 셋째, ‘아주 다른 것에 대한 동경’이라는 언명에 기초한 호르크하이머 후기철학에 대한 이론적 실천 및 활용의 가능성에 대해 논의한다.

화쟁(和諍)의 대상으로서 주체철학과 타자철학 - 유영모와 레비나스의 죽음에 대한 해석을 중심으로 -

심상우 한국하이데거학회 2023 현대유럽철학연구 Vol.- No.68

This study aims to examine how Yoo Young-mo’s subject philosophy and Levinas’ philosophy of the other view the question of death as a primary goal. It also reviews the deaths of the two theorists in terms of communication. These two theorists have many commonalities. First, they discussed philosophy and religion. In particular, philosophy based on monotheism develops throughout one’s whole life. Second, both had an attitude of creatively accepting various cultures. Third, both theorists’ philosophies are closely connected with the thought of life. In the development of the discussion centered on the thought of life, Yoo Young-mo attempted to restore identity through the establishment of subjecthood, whereas Levinas tried to restore otherness through the death of subjecthood. While for Yoo Young-mo, the subject is more primitive than the other, Levinas expresses that the other is more primitive than the subject. However, the decisive difference in viewing death is whether one thinks it dominates existence. Is there any possibility, then, that these two theorists will have a conversation about death? I do not think so. This study seeks the possibility of integration by partially accepting not only Levinas’ philosophy of the other, which criticizes the world of uniformity caused by the Western philosophy of the subject, but also Yoo Young-mo’s philosophy of the subject. 본 연구는 유영모의 주체철학과 레비나스의 타자철학이 죽음의 문제를 어떻게 바라보는지에 대한 검토를 일차적인 목표로 삼고자 한다. 나아가 두 사상가의 죽음 문제를 회통의 차원에서 검토하고자 한다. 이들에게 주체철학과 타자철학이라는 차이에도 불구하고 공통점도 많다. 첫째, 이 두 사상가는 철학과 종교를 회통한다. 특히 유일신교에 기반 한 철학하기를 전 생애에 걸쳐 전개한다. 둘째, 이들 모두 다양한 문화를 창조적으로 수용하는 자세를 가졌다. 나아가 두 사상가 모두 생명사상과 긴밀하게 연결된다. 생명사상을 중심으로 논의 전개함에 있어 유영모는 주체성의 세움을 통해 자기성을 회복하고자 했다면 레비나스는 주체성의 죽음을 통해 타자성을 회복하고자 했다. 유영모에게 주체가 타자보다 더 시원적이라면 레비나스는 주체보다 타자보다 더 시원적이라고 표현한다. 그렇지만 죽음을 바라보는 결정적인 차이는 존재를 지배하느냐 그렇지않느냐이다. 그렇다면 이 두 사상가에게 죽음을 두고 회통의 가능성은 없는가? 그렇지 않다. 본 연구는 서구의 주체철학이 초래한 동일성의 세계를 비판한 레비나스의 타자철학을 일부 수용하면서도 유영모의 주체철학을 일부 수용하여 통합 가능성을 모색하고 한다.

아브라함 친족 됨에 대한 수용사적인 측면에서의 연구

김영선 한국선교신학회 2022 선교신학 Vol.65 No.-

아브라함 종교들은 ‘누가 진정한 아브라함의 자손[혹은 친족]인가’ 라는 문제에 자신의 적법성을 배타적으로 주장한다. 수용사 속에서 유대교와 그리스도교는 ‘아브라함-사라-이삭’의 계보를 ‘하갈-이스 마엘’로 이어지는 계보와 비교 대조함으로 아브라함과 자신들의 관계를 배타적으로 설정하며, ‘하갈-이스마엘’ 계통에 대해 왜곡하고 폄하한 다. 아브라함 종교들 사이의 첨예한 대립의 문제인 ‘아브라함의 친족 됨(kinship)’을 구약성서 속에서 연구한 결과 아브라함의 친족 됨은 민족들 또는 하갈-이스마엘로 불리는 타자들을 향해 열려있으며 아브 라함은 타자들과의 관계하는 삶의 원형으로 제시된다. 선교는 낯선 타자들과 만남을 전제한다. 그러므로 타자 없이는 선교도 있을 수 없으며 타자를 향한 보내심이 교회와 선교의 본질이다. 유일신 신앙과 예언자들을 공유하는 아브라함 종교의 전통은 고통받는 타자들에 대한 특별한 관심과 책임을 수행해 왔으며 오늘날도 이 가치는 아브라함의 친족 됨의 핵심가치로 변함없이 수행되어야 할 것이다. Abrahamic religions exclusively argue for their legality based on the question of ‘who is the true descendant (or relative) of Abraham?’ In Reception History, Judaism and Christianity set their relationship with Abraham exclusively by comparing and contrasting the genealogy of Abraham-Sarah-Issac with the genealogy leading to Hagar-Ishmael, distorting and disparaging the Hagar-Ishmael genealogy. As a result of studying Abraham’s kinship, in the Old Testament, it is opened to the others called Hagar-Ismael, and Abraham is presented as the prototype of life related to others. Missionary work presupposes meeting with the others. Therefore, there can be no mission without the other. The traditions of Abraham religions, which share faith of monotheism and prophets, has demonstrated special interests and responsibilities for the suffering others. Even today, this value will remain the core value of Abraham’s kinship.