본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Comparative Study on the Discussions of Mind and Nature of Dasan Jeong Yak-yong and Sotaesan Park Joong-bin

Heo Seok 1

1원광대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study aims to compare the discussions on the mind and nature of Dasan Jeong Yak-yong and Sotaesan Park Joong-bin, two figures who can be considered as representative in the history of Korean thought. First, I would like to discuss the importance of the practice of the mind as the driving force behind Dasan and Sotaesan to transform society, and the fact that they have a solid theoretical foundation for mind and nature. Second, despite these commonalities between the two men, I would like to clarify that there are significant differences in the content of the mind, nature, and methods of practice. Finally, I would like to assess the limitations of existing studies on Dasan and Sotaesan, and reevaluate the modern meaning of the ideas of the two men. The discussion of Dasan and Sotaesan's mind and nature is based on a critical spirit of social reality of the time and the love of the people. The discussion of the minds and natures of these two thinkers confirms that they both aim for strong participation and practice in reality, not speculative theory. This originated from their intent to overcome the social problems they faced and help the lives of the people. Dasan emphasized the study of mind as the basis for managing the country properly from a practical point of view, while Sotaesan emphasized the study of mind that is Wholeness of Both Spirit and Flesh. They criticized introspective and static practice and pursued a practice-oriented study of the mind in social relationships. To this end, Dasan and Sotaesan critically accepted the discussion of the existing mind and nature, forming their own unique system of thought. However, there is a big difference in the approach to understanding the mind and the view on nature while emphasizing the practice of the human subject. The ideological similarities and differences between the two men can be considered an important asset in the history of Korean thought. In particular, I would like to break away from a previous research perspective that evaluates the ideas of the two men in terms of modern orientation or modern achievement, and raise the need for a new perspective to examine the modern significance their discussions contains.

Statistics

  • 162 Viewed
  • 1 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search