지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper is focused on analyzing the characteristics of Lee Ik's historical theory, the implications of his thought for the Silhak that emerged during the latter period of the Joseon dynasty, and the differences between the Silhak and Zhu Xis nee-Confucianism. Moreover, the historical importance of Lee Ik's understanding of history, and the lessons to be acquired by modern history scholars were also delved into. The results can be summarized as follows:
First, while Lee Ik can be considered as a realist in that he defined history as being decided by the power of reality (actual power), he also believed that history should be analyzed from a moral standpoint as well. Furthermore, Lee considered democracy to be a moral good but not the ultimate end in itself. Lee Ik believed that the common people could be the main actors in history, and that humans, regardless of their social class, possessed the power to change human society through their own actions. Thus, tersely stated, Lees historical view was one that, while not excluding the possibility of people positively affecting change in the course of history, was based firmly in reality. Lee Ik's main objective was to establish a society in which the social status and landlord systems were abolished, I would like to label his historical theory as a realistic historical theory centering on the Minjung(People). Within Lee's theory, the concepts of Sein and Sollen (existence and ought) are not separable, but rather combined to form a new Minjung-oriented value based on reality, As such, his historical theory can be regarded as the unification of existence with Minjung-oriented ought. Thus, Lee Ik's historical theory should not be regarded as one in which the division of existence and ought occurs. Furthermore, It is also difficult to accept his approach as a transitional type of theory moving towards the division of existence and ought.
Second, Let us take a look at the characteristics of the Silhak which emerged in the latter period of Joseon dynasty. The above-mentioned Minjung-oriented nature of Lee Ik's historical theory indicates the Silhak's desire to remove the hierarchical social system.
Third, this paper analyzed the differences between the Silhak and Zhu Xi's neo-Confucianism. As both scholars recognized that Sisae (actual conditions) are an essential variable affecting the flow of history, there can be no doubt that both the Silhak and nec-Confucianism were based on reality. However, these two schools of thought are different in the objectives they pursued. For his part, Zhu Xi's theory was one that strived to stabilize peasant society and had the acceptance of the landlord system and the existence of social classes, with the Sadaebu(ruling class) at the apex, as its core features. Accepting the basic structure of the feudal society, Zhu Xi strived to partially improve or reform the contradictions that prevailed in society in order to stabilize the country. As a result, Zhu Xi school was based on a cyclical view of history that did not allow for any fundamental alterations of history to occur as a result of human effort. On the other hand, Silhak philosophy was based on the fundamental dismantlement of the feudal social system. Thus, it can be argued that Zhu Xi's philosophy is more realistic while Lee Ik's is more idealistic. More likely than not, these differences can be explained by the fact that both scholars lived during different eras.
Fourth, Lee Ik's historical theory can be evaluated as being the extension of Zhu Xi's in that his theory was based on the acceptance of Sisae (actual conditions) and emphasized the role of morality in history. However, Lee Ik's historical theory used different standards to evaluate morality and was based on the belief that historical change could occur as a result of human efforts, including those of the common class. Nevertheless, it is hard to find any clear definition of the development of history in Lee Iks work. In fact, one has to wait until the emergence of Jeong Yak-Yong, who defined the development of history as being based on technological development, to see a clear definition of this term in Silhak writings.
Fifth, this paper discussed the implications of Lee Iks historical theory. Lees historical theory is in harmony with the scientific view of history currently used to evaluate modern history in that it is based on actual conditions (Sisae). The strength of Lee Iks theory can be found in its practical approach, which allows for the possibility that historical reforms can be carried out by human effort, and its avoidance of the elitism that has plagued many a theory. In Lee's view, the unification of existence and the Minjung oriented ought can be carried out in practice through human effort. Moreover, as his theory unifies these two terms with the Minjung at the center, it can be said to be in keeping with modern historical theory.
Sixth, Lee Ik's adoption of an open-minded approach toward the countries surrounding China, while preserving his Sino-centric view of the world, is another aspect of his theory with modern ramifications. Seen under this light, Lee Ik's historical theory may be useful in overcoming the nationalism afflicting modern society.
First, while Lee Ik can be considered as a realist in that he defined history as being decided by the power of reality (actual power), he also believed that history should be analyzed from a moral standpoint as well. Furthermore, Lee considered democracy to be a moral good but not the ultimate end in itself. Lee Ik believed that the common people could be the main actors in history, and that humans, regardless of their social class, possessed the power to change human society through their own actions. Thus, tersely stated, Lees historical view was one that, while not excluding the possibility of people positively affecting change in the course of history, was based firmly in reality. Lee Ik's main objective was to establish a society in which the social status and landlord systems were abolished, I would like to label his historical theory as a realistic historical theory centering on the Minjung(People). Within Lee's theory, the concepts of Sein and Sollen (existence and ought) are not separable, but rather combined to form a new Minjung-oriented value based on reality, As such, his historical theory can be regarded as the unification of existence with Minjung-oriented ought. Thus, Lee Ik's historical theory should not be regarded as one in which the division of existence and ought occurs. Furthermore, It is also difficult to accept his approach as a transitional type of theory moving towards the division of existence and ought.
Second, Let us take a look at the characteristics of the Silhak which emerged in the latter period of Joseon dynasty. The above-mentioned Minjung-oriented nature of Lee Ik's historical theory indicates the Silhak's desire to remove the hierarchical social system.
Third, this paper analyzed the differences between the Silhak and Zhu Xi's neo-Confucianism. As both scholars recognized that Sisae (actual conditions) are an essential variable affecting the flow of history, there can be no doubt that both the Silhak and nec-Confucianism were based on reality. However, these two schools of thought are different in the objectives they pursued. For his part, Zhu Xi's theory was one that strived to stabilize peasant society and had the acceptance of the landlord system and the existence of social classes, with the Sadaebu(ruling class) at the apex, as its core features. Accepting the basic structure of the feudal society, Zhu Xi strived to partially improve or reform the contradictions that prevailed in society in order to stabilize the country. As a result, Zhu Xi school was based on a cyclical view of history that did not allow for any fundamental alterations of history to occur as a result of human effort. On the other hand, Silhak philosophy was based on the fundamental dismantlement of the feudal social system. Thus, it can be argued that Zhu Xi's philosophy is more realistic while Lee Ik's is more idealistic. More likely than not, these differences can be explained by the fact that both scholars lived during different eras.
Fourth, Lee Ik's historical theory can be evaluated as being the extension of Zhu Xi's in that his theory was based on the acceptance of Sisae (actual conditions) and emphasized the role of morality in history. However, Lee Ik's historical theory used different standards to evaluate morality and was based on the belief that historical change could occur as a result of human efforts, including those of the common class. Nevertheless, it is hard to find any clear definition of the development of history in Lee Iks work. In fact, one has to wait until the emergence of Jeong Yak-Yong, who defined the development of history as being based on technological development, to see a clear definition of this term in Silhak writings.
Fifth, this paper discussed the implications of Lee Iks historical theory. Lees historical theory is in harmony with the scientific view of history currently used to evaluate modern history in that it is based on actual conditions (Sisae). The strength of Lee Iks theory can be found in its practical approach, which allows for the possibility that historical reforms can be carried out by human effort, and its avoidance of the elitism that has plagued many a theory. In Lee's view, the unification of existence and the Minjung oriented ought can be carried out in practice through human effort. Moreover, as his theory unifies these two terms with the Minjung at the center, it can be said to be in keeping with modern historical theory.
Sixth, Lee Ik's adoption of an open-minded approach toward the countries surrounding China, while preserving his Sino-centric view of the world, is another aspect of his theory with modern ramifications. Seen under this light, Lee Ik's historical theory may be useful in overcoming the nationalism afflicting modern society.
목차
Ⅰ. 序言
Ⅱ. 朱熹의 歷史理論에서의 時勢ㆍ是非ㆍ實踐ㆍ王朝評價ㆍ華夷觀
Ⅲ. 李瀷의 歷史理論에서의 時勢ㆍ是非ㆍ實踐ㆍ王朝評價ㆍ華夷觀
Ⅳ. 朱熹와 李瀷의 歷史理論 比較
Ⅴ. 結語
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
星湖 李瀷의 詩 創作論 硏究 : 梅花詩를 中心으로
어문론집
2012 .06
-
성호 이익의 실학적 회화미학 : 〈武夷圖〉와 〈陶山圖〉의 발문을 중심으로
양명학
2016 .04
-
歷史理論
역사학보
1989 .12
-
星湖 李瀷의 ‘造命’論과 신분제 개혁방안
역사와실학
2006 .06
-
斗溪 李丙燾(1896~1989)의 史學과 근대 한국사학의 수립
역사학보
2008 .12
-
Practical Learning of Yi Ik
Korea Journal
1972 .08
-
포저 조익의 성의공부로서의 무자기(毋自欺)에 대하여
민족문화연구
2018 .01
-
퇴계 이황의 『주역』 공부-퇴계 이황의 주자학 이해의 심화과정에 대한 한 고찰
동양한문학연구
2018 .01
-
주자학에서의 악의 의미
종교연구
2006 .03
-
李邦翼 漂海記錄에 나타난 ‘서로 다른 길’ : 한글산문 『표해록』과 박지원의 「書李邦翼事」를 중심으로
서강인문논총
2018 .04
-
Zhu Xi’s Ge-wu-zhi-zhi Theory and Its Implications in Reconstructing the Postmodern Curriculum
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2004 .06
-
내재적 발전론과 민족주의
역사와현실
2010 .09
-
이능식의 생애와 역사연구
역사교육
2013 .06
-
星湖 李瀷에 있어서 退溪 禮學의 繼承과 變容
동아인문학
2006 .12
-
Case theory
영어영문학
1987 .10
-
星湖李瀷의 公共哲學과 그 實踐
철학논총
2013 .04
-
『한국철학논집』의 논문 분류 및 두 학자의 논문 분석 - 제1집에서 제55집까지 -
한국철학논집
2018 .01
-
梁啓超의 前期史論과 그 혁신성 - 「新史學」史論을 중심으로 -
역사와 담론
2004 .12
-
歷史小說, 歷史드라마에 나타난 古代史像 고찰 : 최인호, 이문열 소설을 중심으로
스토리앤이미지텔링
2013 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0100-2009-911-018289664