The Four-Seven Debate in Silhak: On the Gong Hino Ribal Theory of the Seongho School

( Ahn Young-sang ) 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소 2014 儒敎文化硏究(中文版) Vol.0 No.21

本文考察了星湖學派論爭的重心—公喜怒理發說。內容大體分爲兩個:第一,宇宙論和道德價値論的區分。栗谷認爲必須在天地變化過程的延長中掌握四端七情論,並提出‘氣發理乘之’。但是星湖認爲沒有心的自然界與人心造成的有善惡的四端七情論不同。星湖學派中主張公喜怒理發說的人們繼承這一主張,認爲在不區分善惡的宇宙論中栗谷是正確的,而在道德價值論中區分理發和氣發來說明善與惡的退溪是正確的。這是試圖將自然現實世界與道德價值世界的四端七情區分開理解所進行的嘗試。 第二,主張公喜怒的理發說的人丟棄退溪學派的理發爲四端,氣發爲七情的一般理論,提出了理發爲公,氣發爲私的新主張。在這一過程中,公喜怒認爲七情也是公,所以必須將其歸屬到理發之中去,這即是公喜怒的理發說。這是在無視旣存的四端與七情的標准的同時尋找新的標准。因此,主張必須維持既存學說的學者與支持新學說的學者展開論戰,分裂出星湖學派。 This paper examines the gong hino ribal (公喜怒理發) theory in Silhak (實學), which was the center of debate in the Seongho (星湖) school of thought. There were two main debates. The first was the distinction between cosmology and morality. Yulgok (栗谷) claimed gibal iseung ji (氣發理乘之), stating the necessity to understand sadan chiljeong (四端七情, the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings) theory in the extension of the universe’s process of change. However, Seongho claimed that the dimension of sadan chiljeong, namely the mind of humans in which good and evil generated, was different from the mindless natural world. Furthermore, those members of the Seongho school asserting the gong hino ribal theory adopted that idea and claimed that Yulgok was right in cosmology, in which there was no distinction between good and evil, while Toegye (退溪), who explained good and evil based on the distinction between ribal (理發, the issuance of ri) and gibal (氣發, the issuance of gi), was right in morality. This was an attempt to understand the Four-Seven theory by differentiating the moral world from the natural world. Secondly, those who asserted the gong hino ribal theory rejected the Toegye school’s common theory that ribal explained sadan (四端, the Four Beginnings) and gibal explained chiljeong (七情, the Seven Feelings) and created a new scheme that ribal was considered to be gong (公) and gibal was considered to be sa (私). A sage’s gong chiljeong (公七情), which is appropriately moderated, namely gong hino (公喜怒), is still categorized as ribal because, despite being chiljeong, it is still gong. This is the gong hino ribal theory, which invalidated the received distinction between the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings while searching for a new distinction. As a result, scholars who upheld the existing distinction came into conflict with those who supported the new distinction, which led to a division within the Seongho school of thought. [Article in Chinese]

The Four-Seven Debate in Silhak: On the Gong Hino Ribal Theory of the Seongho School

안영상 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소 2014 儒敎文化硏究(中文版) Vol.0 No.21

This paper examines the gong hino ribal (公喜怒理發) theory in Silhak (實學), which was the center of debate in the Seongho (星湖) school of thought. There were two main debates. The first was the distinction between cosmology and morality. Yulgok (栗谷) claimed gibal iseung ji (氣發理乘之), stating the necessity to understand sadan chiljeong (四端七情, the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings) theory in the extension of the universe’s process of change. However, Seongho claimed that the dimension of sadan chiljeong, namely the mind of humans in which good and evil generated, was different from the mindless natural world. Furthermore, those members of the Seongho school asserting the gong hino ribal theory adopted that idea and claimed that Yulgok was right in cosmology, in which there was no distinction between good and evil, while Toegye (退溪), who explained good and evil based on the distinction between ribal (理發, the issuance of ri) and gibal (氣發, the issuance of gi), was right in morality. This was an attempt to understand the Four-Seven theory by differentiating the moral world from the natural world. Secondly, those who asserted the gong hino ribal theory rejected the Toegye school’s common theory that ribal explained sadan (四端, the Four Beginnings) and gibal explained chiljeong (七情, the Seven Feelings) and created a new scheme that ribal was considered to be gong (公) and gibal was considered to be sa (私). A sage’s gong chiljeong (公七情), which is appropriately moderated, namely gong hino (公喜怒), is still categorized as ribal because, despite being chiljeong, it is still gong. This is the gong hino ribal theory, which invalidated the received distinction between the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings while searching for a new distinction. As a result, scholars who upheld the existing distinction came into conflict with those who supported the new distinction, which led to a division within the Seongho school of thought.

Jeong Jedu’s Theory of the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings

( Kim Yun-kyeong ) 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소 2014 儒敎文化硏究(中文版) Vol.0 No.21

霞谷鄭齊斗是一位在朝鮮性理學哲學成果的基礎上,對陽明學的性質展開自己獨特思考的學者。他對於曆代學者所討論的哲學主題時而批判時而擁護,同時又對陽明學說進行說明並提出了更具發展性的見解。四端七情論是他對曆代哲學論爭進行批判性解釋的典型。曆代四端七情論中提出的問題的核心是:當心發生作用時,善的根據在哪裏?這表現爲對於“理發”問題的爭論。霞谷把四端七情理解爲‘生理的直接發用’,所以批判提出‘理發’論的退溪的意圖,但並不否認‘理發’這一表達自身。霞谷認爲‘四端’和‘七情’都是情,是‘生理純氣’的發用,我心中的本源--四端就是良知。另外,‘端’不是內部的某種已經規定好了的完結體向外表現出來的端緖,其自身就是本源的發用和出發點。霞谷認爲,如果本體被埋沒,四端和七情都會變的不善。祛除四端七情中的不善,對四端的擴充以及致中和的學習都被歸結爲在四端七情中爲善去惡的問題。通過霞谷的四端七情論我們可以知道:他對於‘心性’的問題意識在於去除心的作用中的虛假和人爲,遵循真實與天理。 Hagok Jeong Jedu (霞谷 鄭齊斗) developed his thought in line with that of Wang Yangming and on the basis of the philosophical achievements of Neo-Confucianism in Joseon. His critical thought is well demonstrated in his theory of the Four Beginnings and Seven Feelings, which is one the most controversial themes for the Joseon Neo-Confucians. An important issue for them was the basis of moral goodness especially in relation to the operation of the mind. A key concept for this issue was ribal (理發), namely the issuance of ri. Hagok understood the Four-Seven in terms of the concept of saengri (生理), and he interpreted ribal in a way that is different from Toegye’s interpretation, which initiated much debates among the Joseon Neo-Confucians. According to Hagok, the Four Beginnings and the Seven Feelings are all emotions (情), saengri, and pure gi (純氣). This paper will investigate this characteristic understanding of ribal in Hagok’s thought. [Article in Chinese]

퇴계철학에 있어서 理의 능동성 이론과 그 연원

장윤수 경북대학교 퇴계연구소 2012 퇴계학과 유교문화 Vol.51 No.-

This paper investigates theory about active of RI(理) that became controversy most in Toegye(退溪) philosophy. I examined dictionary meaning of RI and theory of Juja(朱子)’s in this paper. Then, investigated theory of RI in the early Ming dynasty Juja-scholars that become origin of theory about Toegye’s. Contents that refer active of RI in Toegye philosophy concerned greatly four subject. First, studied theory of RIDONG (理動) and RIBAL(理發) that assert superiority of RI than GI(氣). Second,studied theory of RIDO that emphasize RI of object in subject and object of cognition. Third, handled CHE(體)-YONG(用) of RI. Studied how Toegye was coexisted that doctrine of RI acts and RI does not act. Fourth,studied about aim and significance of activity theory of RI in Toegye philosophy. I tried to clear through this paper how Toegye prospered out of box Juja’s philosophy. 이 논문은 퇴계철학에서 가장 논란이 되는 理의 능동성 이론에 대해 고찰한 것이다. 우선 理의 字典的의미와 주자철학에 있어서 ‘理’論을 살펴보고, 그러고 나서 퇴계의 ‘理’論과 대단히 흡사한 모습을 지닌 明代초기 주자학자들의 ‘理’論을 고찰하였다. 퇴계철학에 있어서 理의 능동성 이론을 직접 언급한 부분에서는, 우선 氣에 대한 理의 우월성을 주장한다는 점에서 理動과 理發의 개념을 한 묶음으로 하여 그 이론적 구조를 천착해 보았고, 理到는 인식주체와 객체의 대립이라는 관점에서 생성된 개념으로 논의를 풀어나갔다. 그리고 퇴계가 주자의 理無爲說을 충분히 인식하면서도 어떻게 理活物說을 주장했는지에 대한 문제의식을 가지고 理의 體用論을 고찰하였으며, 마지막 부분에서는 퇴계철학에 있어서 理의 능동성 이론이 지향하는 바와 그 의의에 대해 살펴보았다. 필자는 이 논문을 통해 퇴계가 주자학을 계승하면서도 어떻게 ‘창의적’으로 발전시켜나갔는지를 확인하고, 그가 궁극적으로 무엇을 지향하였는지에 대해 음미해보았다.

기획논문 : 한(韓) 중(中) 유학(儒學)의 전통(傳統)과 변화(變化) ; 퇴계철학에 있어서 理의 능동성 이론과 그 연원

장윤수 ( Yun Su Jang ) 경북대학교 퇴계연구소 2012 퇴계학과 유교문화 Vol.51 No.-

이 논문은 퇴계철학에서 가장 논란이 되는 理의 능동성 이론에 대해 고찰한 것이다. 우선 理의 字典的의미와 주자철학에 있어서 ``理``論을 살펴보고, 그러고 나 서 퇴계의 ``理``論과 대단히 흡사한 모습을 지닌 明代초기 주자학자들의 ``理``論을 고 찰하였다. 퇴계철학에 있어서 理의 능동성 이론을 직접 언급한 부분에서는, 우선 氣에 대한 理의 우월성을 주장한다는 점에서 理動과 理發의 개념을 한 묶음으로 하 여 그 이론적 구조를 천착해 보았고, 理到는 인식주체와 객체의 대립이라는 관점 에서 생성된 개념으로 논의를 풀어나갔다. 그리고 퇴계가 주자의 理無爲說을 충분 히 인식하면서도 어떻게 理活物說을 주장했는지에 대한 문제의식을 가지고 理의 體用論을 고찰하였으며, 마지막 부분에서는 퇴계철학에 있어서 理의 능동성 이론이 지향하는 바와 그 의의에 대해 살펴보았다. 필자는 이 논문을 통해 퇴계가 주자학 을 계승하면서도 어떻게 ``창의적``으로 발전시켜나갔는지를 확인하고, 그가 궁극적 으로 무엇을 지향하였는지에 대해 음미해보았다. This paper investigates theory about active of RI(理) that became controversy most in Toegye(退溪) philosophy. I examined dictionary meaning of RI and theory of Juja(朱子)`s in this paper. Then, investigated theory of RI in the early Ming dynasty Juja-scholars that become origin of theory about Toegye`s. Contents that refer active of RI in Toegye philosophy concerned greatly four subject. First, studied theory of RIDONG (理動) and RIBAL(理發) that assert superiority of RI than GI(氣). Second, studied theory of RIDO that emphasize RI of object in subject and object of cognition. Third, handled CHE(體)-YONG(用) of RI. Studied how Toegye was coexisted that doctrine of RI acts and RI does not act. Fourth, studied about aim and significance of activity theory of RI in Toegye philosophy. I tried to clear through this paper how Toegye prospered out of box Juja`s philosophy.

연구논문 : 현실적 원인과 전환시대의 논리로 본 이황의 생애와 사상

김승영 ( Seung Young Kim ) 한국동서철학회 2010 동서철학연구 Vol.56 No.-