高峰은 退溪의 四端七情說에 동의하였는가 - 주자어류의 四端是理之發 七情是氣之發에 대한 논의를 중심으로 (Did Gobong Agree with Toegye's Doctrine of Four Bases and Seven Feelings - Focused upon Four Foundation as the Arousing of Principle and Seven Feelings as the Arousing of Vital Force in Zhuziyulei -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국유교학회
· 수록지 정보 : 유교사상문화연구 / 42호 / 293 ~ 325페이지
· 저자명 : 홍정근

초록

고봉은 퇴계와 8년여에 걸쳐 사단칠정에 관한 논변을 벌였다. 최근에 성균관에서 발간한 『유교대사전』과, 민족문화추진회에서 번역한 『국역 고봉전서』에는 고봉이 퇴계의 사단칠정설에 동의하였다거나 복종하였다는 표현이 나온다. 그러나 근래에 발표된 또 다른 일부 서적과 논문들에서는 이와 달리 고봉이 퇴계의 주장을 시인하고 받아들였다고 할 수 없다거나, 퇴계에게 승복당하지 않았다는 등의 주장을 하고 있다. 상반된 의견이다.
고봉은 퇴계와 『주자어류』의 ‘四端是理之發 七情是氣之發’을 해석하는 과정에서 다른 입장을 취했다. 퇴계는 사단과 칠정을 엄격히 구분하는 관점을 유지하며 『주자어류』의 문장을 논변 초기부터 줄곧 긍정하였고, 고봉은 초기에는 『주자어류』의 문장에 대해 퇴계의 설과 같다고 보아 비판적으로 논하다가 시간이 지나면서 긍정하였다. 고봉은 퇴계의 해석 방법을 對說이라고 하였고, 자신의 해석 방법을 因說이라고 하였다. 퇴계는 자신의 학설을 대설이라고 하는 고봉의 견해에 대해 수긍하였다.
퇴계는 본연지성과 기질지성을 구분하듯이 사단과 칠정을 엄격히 구분해야 한다는 점을 지속적으로 주장하였다. 이에 비해 고봉은 사단은 칠정 가운데 선한 측면이라는 입장을 취하고 있었다. 퇴계는 칠정은 기를 위주로 논해야 하므로 氣發이라고 해야 옳다고 주장하였으며, 이러한 관점에서 『주자어류」의 ‘七情是氣之發’을 긍정하였다. 고봉은 칠정은 리기의 발로 보아야 한다고 주장하였으며, 초기에는 이러한 입장에서 『주자어류』의 ‘七情是氣之發’을 비판하였으나, 시간이 흐르면서 주자의 ‘七情是氣之發’을 理弱氣强의 현실을 고려한 표현이라고 보아 긍정하였다. 그러나 내적으로는 여전히 칠정은 리기의 발이라는 관점을 유지하고 있었다. ‘四端是理之發’에 대해서는 퇴계와 고봉사이에 별다른 논쟁이 없었다.
『주자어류』의 ‘四端是理之發 七情是氣之發’에 대한 고봉과 퇴계의 해석을 검토해 보면, 고봉은 사단은 칠정 가운데 선한 측면이라는 점과 칠정은 리기의 발이라는 주장을 처음부터 끝까지 유지하고 있었다. 이러한 견해는 퇴계의 사단칠정설과 다른 것이다. 고봉이 퇴계의 사단칠정설에 동의하였다거나 승복하였다고 보는 견해는 수정되어야 한다.

영어초록

Gobong and Toegye had discussed the Doctrine of "Four Bases and Seven Feelings" over eight years. Recently, it is said that Gobong agreed with or accepted Toegye's doctrine of Four Bases and Seven Feelings in the Encyclopedia of Confucianism published by Sungkyunkwan University and in the Translation of Gobong's Whole Book published by the Institute for the Translation of Korean Classics. Also, when closing their discussion, Gobong wrote the Later Doctrine of Four Bases and Seven Feelings and the Total Doctrine of Four Foundation and Seven Feelings. In them, there is a few of sentences that Gobong seemed to accept Toegye's doctrine of Four Bases and Seven Feelings. On the other hand, in a few of theses recently published, there are a few opinions that Gobong neither accepted Toegye's doctrine nor he consented Toegye. Therefore, their opinions of understanding positions of the two are opposed to each other.
Gobong and Toegye had their own positions in the process of understanding "Four Bases as the Arousing of Principle and Seven Feelings as the Arousing of Vital Force" in Zhuziyulei. Toegye clang to the position of sharply distinguishing Four Bases from Seven Feelings and constantly accepted these sentences in Zhuziyulei. On the other hand, firstly Gobong criticized them, because he thought that they were in accordance with Toegye's doctrine, but later he agreed with them. Gobong called Toegye's method of understanding these sentences a doctrine of corresponding to them (對說), while he did his own method a doctrine of having a foundation for them (因說). Toegye agreed with Gobong's opinion that Toegye's method of understanding these sentences is a doctrine of corresponding to them.
Toegye constantly argued that Four Bases and Seven Feelings were sharply distinguished, as is in the case of the human nature of original substance and that of disposition. On the other hand, Gobong had a position that Four Bases were the good side of Seven Feelings. Toegye emphasized that it was correct to say that Seven Feelings was called the arousing of vital force because they were regarded as vital force, and so accepted the doctrine of "Seven Feelings as the Arousing of Vital Force" in Zhuziyulei. Gobong emphasized that Seven Feelings were regarded as the arousing of principle and vital force, firstly criticized the doctrine of "Seven Feelings as the Arousing of Vital Force" in Zhuziyulei, but later accepted it, in that this doctrine was an expression of considering a real situation of principle was week and vital force is strong. Nevertheless, he still maintained a view that Seven Feelings were the arousing of principle and vital force. The two scholars had no controversy over "Four Bases as the Arousing of Principle."Considering the two scholars' opinions of "Four Bases as the Arousing of Principle and Seven Feelings as the Arousing of Vital Force" in Zhuziyulei, Gobong constantly had an argument that Four Bases were the good side of Seven Feelings and Seven Feelings were the arousing of principle and vital force. This argument is different from Toegye's doctrine of Four Bases and Seven Feelings. It seems to me that we have to correct such a view that Gobong agreed with or accepted Toegye's doctrine.

참고자료

· 없음