KJC Korea
Journal Central

This paper offers a new philosophical approach for explaining the system of technology of the 4th Industrial Revolution. Since 2016 the 4th Industrial Revolution has been one of the hottest topics in Korea. This in two ways; first, all the government agencies recognized the 4th Industrial Revolution as a tremendous opportunity to overcome the current recession; second, people believed that one major role of it is to challenge the deepest assumptions which permeate our attempts to understand and explain the world. The expectation that technology will change everything has been amplified. What such claims mean and what their consequences will be considered throughout this paper. Its overall aim is to outline the era of the 4th Industrial Revolution; the challenges that it makes and the opportunities that it offers our society with regard to a specific set of problems and concerns. As opposed to the fact that the 4th Industrial Revolution was a recent phenomenon, I aim to demonstrate that it has a history, as does the concept of technology. In doing so, I analyze the present state of rapid technological change surrounding the 4th Industrial Revolution by comparing the transition of the paradigm of simplicity to the paradigm of complexity. The paradigm of simplicity means Newtonian science which is rooted in physics and mathematics. From the 17th century to the end of the 19th century, Newtonian science has shown us a world simple and predictable. When it comes to the laws of the motion, the core of the paradigm of simplicity suggests that the world is a well-behaved machine. It offers the promise of a law-abiding and predictable universe, a belief strengthened by the notion that relationships between cause and effect are simple, clear, and linear. And I regard as the core system of the paradigm of simplicity as a mechanical system of technology. The mechanical system of technology consists of three components: 1) human control, 2) components with different functions, 3) repeatability and permanence. But in the early 20th century there was a shifting paradigms. Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics have completely changed the view of the world. As the science philosopher Hans Reichbach has mentioned, there was "transition from causal laws to probability laws". And then it has introduced the paradigm of complexity, a new achievement in philosophy and sciences in the second half of the 20th century. Regarding the paradigm of complexity, it has shown us a world far more complex and unpredictable than Newton’s physics can explain. And in this process, a new theory called Cybernetics was born. In 1948, invented by Nobert Wiener, this is the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things. To put it another way, the key words here are ‘entropy’, ‘feedback’, and ‘information’ as they indicate the interweaving of the notion of communication and control in both machines and living things. Cybernetics focuses on how systems use information and control action to steer towards and maintain their goals, while counteracting various disturbances. And this cybernetic feedback process is directly connected to the self-organizing system of technology. The self-organizing system of technology consists of three components: 1) limited control, 2) cybernetics network, 3) autonomy and persistence. Departing from this distinction, I then focus on the implication of the technical system in the era of 4th Industrial Revolution by exploring the relationship between technical system and cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, Self-driving Car, 3D printers, etc. And in order to explain the strained relationship between paradigm and system of technology, I use a historical and principle approach which is to view the current rapid technological changes such as 4th Industrial Revolution or digital transformation from a wider perspective. As a result, this study will show meaningful results on what the current meaning of the 4th Industrial Revolution is and what the future direction will be.

Is there any reason why Germany, which had hitherto been suffering from high unemployment and serious fiscal deficits and consequently was called ‘a sick man of Europe’ until the early 2000s, has been favorably evaluated as the growth engine of Europe within 15 years? In what process have “Industrie 4.0” ― discussed as the trailblazer of the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" today ― and “Arbeiten 4.0,” labor’s response to it, become the issues of public debate in society and what would be the meaning of the phenomena we can deduce from the process? If Industrie 4.0 is Germany’s response to a global market strategy dominated by the U.S. companies in the process of globalization, Arbeiten 4.0 is German labor’s response to the problems related to Industrie 4.0. The process of Arbeiten 4.0 was led by Andreas Nahles, German Minister of Labor and Welfare in 2015. In April 2015, <Arbeiten 4.0 - Green Paper> was presented for the first time. After about 20 months of conferences, professional and citizen-led dialogues, meetings and ending conferences, <Arbeiten 4.0 - White Paper> was published in March 2017. The result was favorably received by not only the labor sector but also German society in general, and served as an important milestone in the road to digital information society and as an important complement to Industrie 4.0. Nevertheless, it should be questioned whether all these developments in Germany, their plans for the future, and their responses to the coming society be seen as ‘a kind of German-style capitalist model’? The immediate answer is negative. Rather, we can find in this process democratic and human-centered thinking, universal humanism of cherishing human dignity and labor, which is embedded in these German plans. The industrial and labor structures within the Industrie 4.0 and Arbeiten 4.0 are decentralized and autonomous and pursues a horizontal network structure that respects diversity and a consensus. It is no coincidence that this structure coincided with the structure of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or the digital information society of the future.

This paper aims to discuss the influence of technologies such as de-frame, advanced robot, and artificial intelligence on humanities-based art, as well as the proper use of, and the harmony among technologies, using the essence of the digital system as the essence of non-existence. Humanities-based arts are more desperate today when the weight of technology is excessive, but their position is getting smaller and smaller. However, the creativity of humanitiesbased arts is essential for restoring and sustaining humanity, and it must be used to enhance human senses, cognition, and thinking capabilities that have been diminished by technology. Such an idea has become clearer through the analysis and discussion of recent cases. The contents of the discussion are as follows. Recent imaging technologies try to get closer to reality by outperforming the two-dimensional plane frame, which was the critical limit. By doing so, images can play the same role as living creatures, and the areas of humans and technology that have been thoroughly discerned have been merged. Advanced robots are able to perform artistic activities as physical entities. There are two types of advanced robots: one that emphasizes a resemblance to humans and the other that focuses on machine operation. These two types are expected to develop separately and eventually fuse together, which means the birth of non-real reality. Artificial intelligence is used in works such as literature (writing), paintings, music (composition and performance), but it is analyzed that there is a definite limit to creating unique works of art. Therefore, genuine creativity is difficult for artificial intelligence. This paper has proposed “arts of humans,” “arts by humans,” and “arts for humans” as the ways to sustain humanistic and artistic creativity.

This article argues that Nietzsche’s thought and Zen Buddhism have significant similarities in terms of understanding ‘the self’ and ‘the body.’ There are temporal and cultural differences between the two, though. As is well known, Nietzsche was a German philosopher who was born and lived in the nineteenth century, and Zen Buddhism arose in Tang Dynasty in old China (A.D.618∼907)and was introduced to Japan through Korea. When Nietzsche was actively engaged in his own academic activities, some of the early Buddhist scriptures were translated into German. However, he did not have a chance to get to know exactly about Mahayana Buddhism or Zen Buddhism. Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s thought is much more similar to Zen Buddhism than to the early Buddhism. In particular, Japanese Zen master Dogen has many affinities with Nietzsche in that he emphasizes the priority of ‘the body’ rather than ‘the soul’. The two believed that they could find the authentic and sole ‘self’ in ‘the body’. According to them, ‘the body’ is not a simple component of the dichotomous branching of the mind and the (physical) body, but rather the larger ‘self’ that breaks down the dichotomy itself. In Buddhism, the idea of abandoning the obsession for this dual distinction dates back to Nāgārjuna who claimed to abandon logical dualism. Nietzsche also saw ‘becoming’ as a characteristic of ‘the self’ and rejected the opposition between ‘being’ and ‘nothingness’ that had been dominant in Western thought. He insisted that the notion of an unchanging ‘I’ was also a fictional attachment. This fiction arises because people do not pay attention to the larger ego, namely ‘the self’. Therefore, an escape from these attachment and misunderstanding is a very important starting point for discovering the genuine ‘self’. In order to understand this true ‘self’, intuition and symbols are more useful methods than conceptual thinking. This characteristic appeared in the style of both Zen Buddhism and Nietzsche. The Koan in Zen Buddhism and Nietzsche’s aphorism showed their anti-rational and anti-systematic characteristics. Most of them are aimed at stimulating our thought rather than presenting a correct answer. The Zen master and Nietzsche’s Zarathustra commonly ask a riddle. Beside putting a riddle, they also took practical actions as a way of gaining enlightenment. Dogen developed a ‘Zazen’, and Nietzsche emphasized a ‘dancing’. ‘The body’ is a very important place in that our will arises and manifests itself. The discovery of the genuine ‘self’ through practice lies at the heart of their religious and philosophical enlightenment.

My essay reads H.D.’s Trilogy as an emanation of her imagist spirit. Throughout her long-ranging career, she continues to maintain the principles of imagism, contrary to the mainstream critical tendency of bi-secting her oeuvre. While the early criticism foregrounds the period of imagism, the recent feminist critics mainly focus on her later long poems, denouncing male imagists’ and modernist critics’ confinement of and control over her texts. However, I suggest continuity between these seemingly disparate periods, appreciating her persistent characteristics of imagism. Trilogy does not so much obscure the earlier imagist impulse and techniques as it weaves them into a new pattern. Its repeated images, especially those of enclosure and opening, are as clear, sharp, precise, and even dynamic as in her earliest imagist poems, “Priapus” and “Hermes of the Ways.” Trilogy’s free verse dispenses with any consistent rhyme scheme or meter, but carries various chains of repeated sounds whose coherence and beauty create a unified web of meaning. Trilogy is an acknowledgement of the unity of H.D.’s career, depending both conceptually and technically on imagism.

This paper is aimed at finding ways to improve liberal arts education at universities that can meet the demands of the industry in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It emphasizes the necessity of cooperation rather than competition to cope with the trend of the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and suggests that the education of universities should also aim to educate creative competence based on cooperation. To demonstrate this, this paper reviewed existing competency indicators through gathering the opinions of corporate and educational experts, and reaffirmed the results of the review through the survey of the corporate demands. Corporations preparing for the Fourth Industrial Revolution also place emphasis on abilities based on cooperation. In order to help cultivate these abilities, universities should be equipped with an educational area where various expertises can be converged and harmonized. The center of this area is liberal arts education. In this sense, liberal arts education at universities should be understood as a platform for expanding knowledge that could incorporate various contents of professional knowledge, and the improvement of liberal arts education should be the top priority concern of the educational development plan.

After World War II, Germany needed a lot more labor force in the wake of the nation’s sudden economic growth. For this reason, a large number of Turkish workers were invited to Germany. The film “Almanya: Welcome to Germany (Almanya: Willkommen in Deutschland, 2011)” produced by Turkish immigrants dramatizes the question of identity for Turkish guest workers in Germany. The family dealt with in this film is a family of Turkish immigrants who assimilated themselves to German society and live a successful life. The members of the Turkish immigrants have various identities depending on the ages and they become less aware that they are Turks. On paper they have become German citizens, but the question of whether Germans actually recognize them as the German people is not dealt with in the film. But from their point of view, they have assimilated well to Germany and are no longer categorized as the Turkish people. Through this film, I examined the difficulty felt by the three generations of Turkish migrants and how the issue of migration is discussed. The first-generation Hussein thinks that he is still a Turk, but the second-generation children are bothered to refer to such an issue and the third-generation Cenk often finds himself as a German, But in this movie, the relationship with the Germans unfortunately disappeared. Therefore, there is no direct socio-cultural conflict with the Germans, and the issue of a hijab and honor killings is slightly mentioned. Their assumption that these families have assimilated to German life is their stance, not to mention their relationship with the Germans. The problem of migration is still a matter of grave concern among the different generations of the immigrants.

This article is aimed at analyzing the Cubism theory by Carl Einstein and examining a poem as an example that Cubism was adapted into literature. Unlike Euclid spatial concept, the space that Einstein considered to be the basis of Cubism paintings is discontinuum of the qualitative space. A symbol of volume is generated by the integration of visual, sensory, and motor senses that occur in the space of memory. Three-dimensional spatial experiences arising from integration is demonstrated to be simultaneously coexisting after spreading into different two-dimensional viewpoints on the same subject for analysis in the two-dimensional picture space. In alignment with this, fragmentation of the poetic subject, exchanges of viewpoints, and simultaneity of the different reality aspects are found in literary Cubism. As such, the poem “Tötlicher Baum” makes us recognize the organizational principle of Cubism such as the destruction of the subject surface, simultaneity of the different viewpoints on the subject, the development of spatial sense and so on.

The article is aimed at examining a difference between the Central railway union and the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (VTsSPS) of the Soviet Union in relation to the Stakhanovite movement. The Central railway union became involved in the development of the Stakhanovite movement earlier and more actively. The political status of L. M. Kaganovich as head of the People’s Commissariat of Ways of Communications (NKPS) and the closest henchman of Stalin, and the early achievement of Krivonos in July 1935 exercised a strong influence on its early development. Kaganovich, using his political power, placed the commissariat as well as the related unions under his direct control. In addition, a structural change which had been pursued by the Stalinist leadership from 1931 made a contribution to this subordination. In both 1931 and 1934, the party Central Committee made decisions to subdivide the unions. Apparently these changes aimed to raise the work efficiency of the individual unions by closely attaching them to the related commissariats. But the real effect was the reduction of the central power of VTsSPS over individual unions. By weakening the link between VTsSPS and the individual unions, the party intended to place the individual unions more directly under its own control. On the other hand, the status of railway transport in the economy played a large part in its achievement during 1935 and 1936. In 1935 the Soviet government made huge investments in railway transport and this led to a record performance from the second quarter of 1935 before the beginning of the Stakhanovite movement. The enlarged financial resources and the appointment of Kaganovich as Narkom of NKPS allowed railway transport to perform favorably and the Stakhanov-Krivonosite movement to become more evident.

The Yeongnam Fraternal Society was a social gathering of the people from South and North Gyeongsang Province residing in Seoul. This Society, established in September 1927, consisted of landowners, bourgeoisie, and a small number of socialists. An Gwang-cheon, the general secretary to the secret society Korean Communist Party, became a member of the Society. He believed that this society was needed to utilize the local council elections of Governor-General of Korea. However, the rank-and-file members of the Korean Communist Party regarded alliances with pro-Japanese people as inappropriate. They thought that such alliances would weaken the foundation of the National United Front, or Singanhoe. In order to struggle against the Yeongnam Fraternal Society, they organized a series of campaigns, which received widespread support. Thus, in October 1927, the Korean Community Party was divided into two factions. The leading faction of the Communist Party, led by An Gwang-cheon, expelled non-mainstream leaders from the Central Committee of the Party. The expelled non-mainstream communists organized their own Communist party.