鄭齊斗와 中江藤樹의 『大學』 解釋 比較 (A Comparative Analysis of Jeong Je-du and Nakae Toju’s Interpretation of the Great Learning)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국양명학회
· 수록지 정보 : 양명학 / 50호 / 127 ~ 152페이지
· 저자명 : 유정연

초록

본 논문은 17세기 이후 한국과 일본 두 나라에서의 사상계에서 양명학을 대표하는 정제두와 나카에 토쥬의 『大學』 해석상의 同異點은 무엇이며, 그 사상적 배경은 어떠한지를 파악하는 데에 연구목적이 설정되어 있다.
정제두와 나카에 토쥬는 각각 한국과 일본에서 양명학의 시조로서 평가 받고 있는 만큼, 한국사상사와 일본사상사에서 대단한 분기점을 마련하였다. 이들은 혼란한 시대상황 속에서 주자학 이념으로는 더 이상의 현실 타개가 불가능함을 자각하고, 독자적인 양명학의 세계관을 제시한다. 당대 학자들이 세계관을 표명하기 위해서는 신격화되어 있었던 『大學章句集註』에 대한 본인의 해석 차이를 드러내어 立論의 근거로 삼는 과정이 필수적이었다. 정제두와 나카에 토쥬 또한 각각 조선과 일본에서 『大學』에 대하여 기존 儒者들과 가장 극명한 입장 차이를 보인 바 있으므로, 두 인물을 중심으로 본고를 서술하고자 한다.

영어초록

The purpose of this paper is to identify the ideological systems in both Korea and Japan since the 17th century. Especially after the war, Korea and Japan were in a very difficult situation because of the social confusion caused by the influx of movement toward modernization.
At that time, Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism was the mainstream a in two countries. Therefore, the intellectuals of the two countries tried to overcome the turbulent social phenomenon through the new values - Yangming’s Neo-Confucianism.
Since Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju are evaluated as the founders of Yangming’s philosophy in Korea and Japan respectively, they set a turning point in Korean history and Japanese history.
Confucians at the time started argument from the hermeneutical point of view of the Confusian classics. Therefore, this study will select two people, Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju, who showed the most remarkable difference against the exisiting Confucians among the understanding of “the great learning” in 17th century Joseon dynasty and Japan.
This study is divided by : (i) the definition of “the three guidelines(三綱領)” and realationship among them, (iii) the understanding of “correcting affairs and realization of original knowledge(格物致知)” (iv) the analysis of “making one’s intentions sincere(誠意)”.
Jeong Je-do regarded “making bright virtue brilliant(明明德)” and “having affection for the people(親民)” as “vertical line(經)”, and “coming to rest in the highest good(止於至善)” as “horizontal line(緯)”, which is his own unique theory of the three guidelines of the Great Learning.
On the other hand, Nakae Toju affirms that only “making bright virtue brilliant” is the most important one among the three guidelines, and “having affection for the people” and “coming to rest in the highest good” are merely the world of ‘function’ in which “bright virtue(明德)” is realized.
Both Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju accept Yangming’s interpretation of “Ge-wu(格物)” - correcting affairs(正物), however, the understanding about “zhi-zhi(致知)” differs from Zhu xi and Wang Yangming. Jeong Je-do only regards “Liangzhi(良知)” as “moral nature of human beings – the ability to recognize and judge morality(道德知)”. On the other hand, Nakae Toju understands “Liangzhi(良知)” as “mind of knowing right from wrong(是非之心)”. Therefore, the human behavior is regarded that Liangzhi is immediately revealed to reality.
They also sought to find answers to “making one’s intentions sincere(誠意)” by identifying the origin of good and evil.
Jeong Je-do accepts the interpretation of the “intention” of Zhu xi and Wang Yangming, which means “making one’s intentions sincere”. On the other hand, Nakae Toju regarded “Intention(意)” as “the source of all desire and all evil”. Therefore, he perceived ‘making one’s intentions sincere’ as “cleansing one’s self of something problematic(絶意)” or “desire that must be cut from human mind(毋意).” Through the above steps, the study compared the Jeong Je-do and Nakae Toju, who are the two representative Wang Yangming scholars of Korea and Japan. I hope that this paper will be of some help in the study of Wang Yangming’s philosophy in the future of the three East Asian countries.

참고자료

· 없음