2020, Vol.58, No.

Philosophical Investigation 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.41

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

This paper aims at looking into the diversity of the 17th century Joseon's Confucian Classics thoughts. With Noron exercising its authority in the 17th century, Joseon's Confucian Classics thoughts were entering following the path to intensifying the Zhuzixue. This made people at that time difficult to oppose the Zhuzixue. This is proved by the The fact that “Samunlog” was handed down from generation to generation only as a copy of the Choe’s family’s manuscript. Paradoxically, the esoterica inside the book shows the diversity of Joseon’s Confucian Classics thoughts. A chapter called 'Maengjagiui' inside the book serves as an evidence. Unlike other chapters, 'Maengjagiui' is composed of a series of questions and answers from Choe Myung-gil and Jo Ik. Moreover, concerning the way to understand “Mencius”, one of them understanded from the perspective of Yangmingxue, while the other stood from the viewpoint of Zhuxixue. Base on those questions and answers in 'Maengjagiui', Choe Myung-gil had the same viewpoints as Yangmingxue, while Jo-ik stood at Zhuzixue’s side. Furthermore, Choe Myung-gil, at his age of 50, expressed opinions which were somewhat different from Yangming’s. Base on this examination, we can conclude that the prominent figure of Yangmingxue in the 17th century Joseon was Choe Myung-gil, but not Jo Ik. In addition, we can say that 'Maengjagiui' is a classic which shows that the 17th century Joseon Confucian Classics thoughts did not only develop into a more intensified Zhuzixue, but also included scholars’ awareness of problems about the acceptance and overcoming of Yangmingxue.

This paper elucidates the meaning of Scripture and religion in Spinoza's thought. Now that Spinoza's naturalistic ontology, equating God with nature, denies the personality of God, there have been many studies interpreting Scripture and revealed religion as remnants of superstition. However, Spinoza wrote not only Ethica stating the idea of a natural god, also Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, which is a close interpretation of Scripture. This paper aims to present Spinoza’s exact view of the relationship between philosophy and religion by fully examining his interpretation of Scripture. Revelation in Scripture is expressed in an imaginary way, rather than relying on high-level rational speculation. But the concept of revelation should not be taken negatively. In fact, Spinoza regarded revelation as knowledge and recognized its certainty. The certainty of revelation, as that of the moral dimension, is not theoretical or rational, but it is undoubtedly true that it also represents certainty. In other words, Scripture has a consistency, which does not lie in the level of theory Scripture, not as a rational system but as an imaginary one, identifies the practical norms through the imaginary structure necessary for salvation. The essential point of biblical teachings is that it equates faith or submission to God with justice or compassion for neighbors. Although philosophy retains total freedom of thought, it must also acknowledge that religion has its realm reaching the same destination through its own way completely different from reason. Reason and faith or philosophy and religion cannot be in conflict because of their different domains.

Schopenhauer, emphasizing those affinities between his own philosophy and Buddhism, was a thinker having played a leading role in the formation of ‘European Buddhism’. However, the ‘Schopenhauerian Buddhism’ is a distorted one by ‘pessimism’ and ‘denial of the will’ which constitute his metaphysics of the will. Schopenhauer includes as evidence of denial of the will Christianity, Brahmanism, Buddhism, quietism, asceticism, mysticism, and so forth,―which is the integration theory based on the concept of denial of the will. In that theory, Buddhism is defined as another pessimistic religion teaching denial of the will. In this sense, for him, Buddhism is intrinsically identical with Christianity, Brahmanism, mysticism, and so forth. The source of such distortion lies in his maintained essentialism. Schopenhauer’s essentialism conflicts with Buddhism’s anti-essentialism in the depths of thought. I will elucidate the in-depth disparities between his metaphysics of the will and Buddhism by comparing the former with the latter’s tilakkhaṇa and nibbāna. In this process, it is to be revealed that it is impossible to integrate Buddhism with Christianity, Brahmanism, mysticism, etc.