@article{ART002360260},
author={Jun Tae Kim},
title={A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-},
journal={PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE},
issn={1975-1621},
year={2018},
number={27},
pages={23-41},
doi={10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002}
TY - JOUR
AU - Jun Tae Kim
TI - A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-
JO - PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE
PY - 2018
VL - null
IS - 27
PB - Research Institute for East-West Thought
SP - 23
EP - 41
SN - 1975-1621
AB - This study deals with the characteristic of the view of Chul-Cheo and the phase of its conversion, focusing on the dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s conduct. Chul-Cheo refers to the combination of entry into public life and retirement. In that the realization of Tao was set as the ultimate goal and that Confucius and Mencius proposed the criteria, it seems to be an absolute concept, but Chul-Cheo is relative. The judgment on whether it is a situation in which one can practice Tao and what justice one should pursue at this point in time differs depending on the person. The final decision of Chul-Cheo is made according to the individual control. Kim Sang-heon’s case shows the relative character of this view of Chul-Cheo.
Along with this, the case of Kim Sang-heon shows that the basic perception about Chul-Cheo was changing in Confucian scholars in Joseon. Until Byungjahoran(Manchu Invasion of Korea), with only a few exceptions, Confucian scholars emphasized ‘Chul’ rather than ‘Cheo.’ However, after Byungjahoran, he preferred ‘Cheo’ to ‘Chul’ and tended to emphasize the fidelity to Tao (truth) fidelity beyond the loyalty between sovereign and subject. As the civilization order symbolized by the Ming Dynasty collapsed and the Joseon Dynasty surrendered to the Qing Dynasty, he judged that the world came in which he could not realize Tao. He did not think either that he would need to enter government service that had lost legitimacy and authority. That Kim Sang-heon’s conduct became the target of ‘dispute’ instead of ‘criticism’ shows the conversion of perception. This is important in that it will affect the Sallim’s political stance subsequently.
KW - Kim Sang-heon;Chul Cheo;Byungjahoran;Righteousnes between Sovereign and Subjects;Tao
DO - 10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
ER -
Jun Tae Kim. (2018). A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-. PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE, 27, 23-41.
Jun Tae Kim. 2018, "A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-", PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE, no.27, pp.23-41. Available from: doi:10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
Jun Tae Kim "A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-" PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE 27 pp.23-41 (2018) : 23.
Jun Tae Kim. A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-. 2018; 27 : 23-41. Available from: doi:10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
Jun Tae Kim. "A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-" PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE no.27(2018) : 23-41.doi: 10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
Jun Tae Kim. A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-. PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE, 27, 23-41. doi: 10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
Jun Tae Kim. A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-. PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE. 2018; 27 23-41. doi: 10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
Jun Tae Kim. A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-. 2018; 27 : 23-41. Available from: doi:10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
Jun Tae Kim. "A Study on the View of Chul-Cheo-Focused on the Dispute over Kim Sang-heon’s Conduct immediately after Byungjahoran-" PHILOSOPHY·THOUGHT·CULTURE no.27(2018) : 23-41.doi: 10.33639/ptc.2018..27.002
