2017, Vol.48, No.

Philosophical Investigation 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.41

pISSN : 1598-7213 / eISSN : 2671-7565
https://journal.kci.go.kr/philinst

This article is a study result on direction and methods of historiography of Korean philosophy due to a reflection on many studies of Korean philosophy until now. It includes a reflection on meaning of the historiography from communication of Korean society and looks for a required new viewpoint and methods of historiography of Korean philosophy. For these it is considered that the historiography should be connected to communication with readers when the historiography is published. Thus Niklas Luhmann’s Social System theory is to provide a basis of this discussion. This article discussed about four themes: How to approach the Japanese colonial view of Korean history of philosophy? Could concept of Korean philosophy be possible? Is it available to take substance of Korean philosophy for granted? How is peculiarity of Korean philosophy possible? The conclusion is as follow. Firstly substantialization of Korean philosophy should be avoided and rather system and context of philosophical discussion and communications in Korea should be very identity and peculiarity of korean philosophy. However, it needs more continuous discussion to choose a main method to describe the Korean history of philosophy according to the Western philosophical themes or to other themes.

This paper aims to explore critical thought on “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) of Xunzi portrayed in Fēishíèrzǐ(非十二子) based on critical perspective instead of figures. Xunzi’s criticism on his “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) is presented in the entire Xunzi and his critique on theoretical features proposed by “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) is introduced in Fēishíèrzǐ(非十二子), Tiānlún(天論), and Jiěbì(解蔽). In addition, his critical commentaries are observed in Zhènglún(正論), Dělún(禮論), Lèlún(樂論), and Zhèngmíng(正名). Dělún(禮論), and Lèlún(樂論) primarily discuss his criticism on Mo-tzu and Xìngě(性惡) mainly talks about criticism on Mencius’s discussion of human nature(性善說). Previous studies have focused on specific “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子)(figures) and examined them so far in terms of studying Xunzi’s critical thought on his “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子). Moreover, they have concentrated on Tiānlún(天論), Jiěbì(解蔽), Zhènglún(正論), Dělún(禮論), Lèlún(樂論), and Zhèngmíng(正名). They cited Fēishíèrzǐ(非十二子) only a couple of times. Therefore, this paper will put Fēishíèrzǐ(非十二子) as a basic text, which has gained little attention compared to his other critical texts on “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) and investigate his critical thought. This paper attempts to examine his major critical perspectives(themes) on “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) rather than figures in terms of examining his critical thought on “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子). To do so, his criticism on “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) identified in Fēishíèrzǐ(非十二子) will be briefly observed and his critical thought won “the Hundred Schools of Thought”(諸子) will be analyzed based on two major perspectives: balancing perspective on human desire and realistic balancing perspective.

Historically many scholars debated the question of the standard(經) and the expedient(權). Han scholars claimed that “that which is at variance with the standard and complies with the Way is called the expedient”, and Cheng-I maintained that “the expedient is the same as the standard.” And Zhu Xi(1130-1200) made the most comprehensive analysis between them. He claimed that the standard is the standard and the expedient is the expedient. The two are clearly distinguished. And Zhu Xi maintained that “the exercising of the expedient can be done only by saints.” He was an absolutist in terms of moral standards and therefore insisted that all man should obey the standards and that only saints can choose the expedients. This neo-confucian philosopher has made many contributions to this Confucian ethical subject, but also there are many contradictions.