2012, Vol., No.14

PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.5

pISSN : 1975-1621 / eISSN : 2092-0873
https://journal.kci.go.kr/insewtdgu

This paper is A Study on Legend of Tangun(단군) in History of Korean Philosophy. Study on Legend of Tangun is important in korean society of current times. Because, ethical and moral vision in Legend of Tangun was different from visions of other surrounding country, and then is absorbed in values and norms of korean society of current times. I thank Legend of Tangun, first of all, should be analyzed in ethical and moral dimension. Because I think development of philosophical study starts with study of ethical and moral conflict. From the perspective of western ethics & morality, Legend of Tangun is insufficient data for the perpose of the foundations of ethics. Because it there is no norm. However, Legend of Tangun did not show ethical and moral vision at all. Philosophical studies on Legend of Tangun find out moral values and can overlook the History of Korean Philosophy by means of the moral values. Description of Legend of Tangun in History of Korean Philosophy is bound by public perception and the ruling ideology. Readers with a strong cultural needs want to meet Philosophical core notions like totality[大全], exquisite synthesis[妙合], 生命[Life], 愛[Love], 敬[respect], 無爲[inaction], 玄妙之道[deeply exquisite truth], 弘益人間[to help human beings] etc.. Because, by no means these philosophical core notions, they can understand korean culture and history of korean philosophy. By the way, Philosophical core notions in Philosophical studies on Legend of Tangun and Description of Legend of Tangun in History of Korean Philosophy does not conform in all probability. The result of philosophical studies on Legend of Tangun is not reflected in Description of Legend of Tangun in History of Korean Philosophy. When Philosophical studies on Legend of Tangun and Description of Legend of Tangun in History of Korean Philosophy is combined with the proper quantum, especially, after a careful process of rigorous criticism, when The result of philosophical studies on Legend of Tangun is not reflected in Description of Legend of Tangun in History of Korean Philosophy, it becomes more useful implement of comprehensive understanding of Korean Philosophy, for the public as well as experts.

The Latin father, Tertullianus said, "credo quia absurdum." He insisted that the relation between faith and reason is exclusive. On the contrary, Anselmus said, "credo ut intelligam" He sought after the relation between faith and reason as inclusive one.(fides quaerens intellectum) Because science is nowadays regarded as the standard of reason, many people think that faith or revelation is not scientific, therefore unreasonable. However I criticize ‘Consilience: The unity of Knowledge(1998)’(by E. Wilson) as scientific holism, which regards only knowledge proved by observation and calculation as reasonable and meaningful. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the true relation between faith and reason. To disclose this relation, I search for the answer to the following questions. Is the relation between faith and reason an exclusive alternative? Is faith contradictory to reason? Is there any harmonious connection between faith and reason? If there is no way to God by scientific method, i.e. observation and calculation, does any other way remain? If does any other way to God for men's reason remain, which is the way? I found this way in Kant's Moral Religion, which admits the internal connection between faith and practical reason.

The traditional concept of a priori knowledge was completed by Kant. He extended a kind of it and specified its nature by classifying analytic and synthetic judgments. Many of issues about Kant's epistemology have been raised so far, one of them was about the kind and nature of a priori knowledge suggested by the Kant. By giving examples of synthetic a priori knowledge, Kant insisted that a priori knowledge can provide information about fact. In addition, by regarding necessity and universality as nature of a priori knowledge, he argued that necessary knowledge is a priori knowledge. This view of Kant has been criticized by many scholars, especially Logical Positivists. Logical Positivists contend that a priori knowledge is analytic judgment, the reports of linguistic usages, conventions and they assert nothing about facts or world. However, B. Blanshard criticizes Logical positivism's argument as too excessive. His view on a priori knowledge has room for synthetic a priori knowledge suggested by the Kant, and room for the tradition of philosophical speculation. But according to the coherence theory, Blanshard denies that only a priori knowledge is necessary. So not only he does not agree Kant's argument, but also rejects the view of logical positivism that a priori knowledge is analytic, necessary. Eventually, he, along with Kripke, denies an equation that a priori knowledge is analytic.