2014, Vol.7, No.1

탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.57

pISSN : 2092-6081 / eISSN : 2383-9899
https://journal.kci.go.kr/eih

This article examines the process by which Hyeon Chae (玄采), who had been a yeokgwan (譯官) in Joseon, emerged as a modern intellectual through his works on foreign book translation and textbook compilation. Hyeon worked at the Hakbu (學部) as a translator and compiler of textbooks after the 1894 Kabo Reforms. He did not limit himself to performing a passive role as a government official. Hyeon has been concerned about the organization of textbooks and worked to give new meaning to his translation work within the context of his times. He translated foreign books for the purpose of educating people and ultimately making the Daehan Empire a rich and powerful independent nation. Hyeon’s consciousness and knowledge which have accumulated through translations manifest clearly in the Yunyeonpildok(幼年必讀), an introductory textbook for children and the general public. Hyeon attempted to organize the material in a clear and straightforward manner suitable for the level of children or those new to modern education. He intended to evoke people’s patriotism through various contents in this book. Hyeon also recognized the necessity of industrial and scientific education in reaching the goal of building a rich, powerful, and independent nation, Hyeon Chae, who had been a lower level official in the premodern era, transformed himself into an active modern intellectual who would lead the introduction, processing, and circulation of modern knowledge through translation.

In the history of Korea, and also in the history of various discourses such as those of the sciences and literature, the Japanese occupation in 1910 is a big turning point. The discourse system before this turn and the system after it can be contrasted with each other. The present paper attempts to apply to the Korean scenario two discourse theories for the analysis of historical turns. It should be emphasized that only exemplary insights are given here. The first theory is by Michel Foucault. His Order of Things analyzes the pivotal moment about 1800 and contrasts the discourse system of Europe of the 17th and 18th centuries with that of the 19th and 20th centuries. The world was understood in the former through a tabular scheme, as in an encyclopedia, but in the latter, the world was understood according to the time axis, as in human sciences. This contrast can be compared with the contrast of the Korean discourse systems before and after the Japanese occupation. In the former, besides Confucianism, the principle of the spatial comprehension of the world was dominant. However, in the latter, the comprehension of the world was according to the timeline through human sciences, which were introduced from the West and Japan. The second theory is by Friedrich Kittler. His Discourse Networks 1800/1900 analyzes the historical turn around 1900 and emphasizes the materiality of literary discourses post– 1900. The same can also be observed in the literature by the Korean Yi Sang, especially in the translation of his Japanese works into Korean.

This essay explores the surprising relationship between what Simone de Beauvoir calls the will to disclose being and what Friedrich Nietzsche calls the will to power. I argue that the will to disclose being is an appropriation of the will to power in Nietzsche. Both terms suggest an image of the ethical, the irreducible and unpredictable element of valuation necessary to all life, which does not require a concept of the human. Both the will to disclose being and the will to power affirm that bodies are subject to the power of non– volitional valuation, and this is what motivates the critique in both Beauvoir and Nietzsche of the will to morality as social critique. The essay proceeds in three parts. In the first part I demonstrate that it is unclear whether Beauvoir intended the will to disclose being as an appropriation of the will to power. The second part articulates the will to disclose being as the mutual disclosure of inherently relational singularities. The relational nature of the will to disclose being is a response to what Beauvoir calls the “bare will to power.” However, as I discuss in part three, this bare will to power in fact resembles what Nietzsche himself deplores. My conclusion is thus that Beauvoir’s will to disclose being forwards the relational nature of the will to disclose being/will to power but is too strongly an implicit appropriation of the will to power to be considered a rejection of the will to power itself.