본 논문에서 필자는 기대승이 사칠논쟁에서 퇴계의 호발설에 대한 비판한 점들을 살펴보고, 이를 통해 기대승의 사단칠정설의 변화를 밝혔다. 1566년 이전의 사칠설을 고봉의 초기설로 볼 수 있다. 이때의 고봉은 모든 감정을 천명지성에서 발원한 것으로 보아 모두 리발에 해당한다고 여겼다. 칠정을 천명지성에서 발원하여 나오는 것이라 하여 기발이라고만 할 수 없다고 본 것이다. 1566년, 기대승은 「사단칠정후설」, 「사단칠정총론」에서 칠정의 경우 감정 발현의 결과가 리와 기 두 측면으로 나타나는데, 리와 기 두 측면이 있다는 것을 기발이라고 할 수 있다고 후퇴한다. 그는 이렇게 순선한 사단에 대하여 선악이 모두 (...) 있는 칠정을 기발이라고 하는 것을, 기질지성이 리와 기를 모두 포함하기는 하지만 이를 본연지성에 대비하여 ‘기’ 또는 ‘기질’이라 지칭하는 것과 같은 용법이라고 설명한다. 사칠논쟁의 결론부에서 고봉과 퇴계가 합의한 리발 기발의 구분은 존재론적 구분이 아닌 가치론적 구분이다. 이들이 합의한 호발설은 리기의 발출과정에서 각기 발하는 것이 주장한 것이 아니라 리기가 섞여 있으면서 감정의 의미와 내용에 따라 구분하여 수양해야 한다는 이론이다. 고봉이 초기에 퇴계의 호발설을 반대한 것은 감정을 리와 기 두 측면으로 나누면, 理와 氣가 대등한 것으로 여겨져 세계의 근원적 가치는 理라는 것이 가려질 뿐 아니라, 예컨대 칠정 속의 理와 같은 현실에서의 理가 유명무실해질 것을 우려했기 때문이다. 다시 말해 고봉은 사단의 리발에 대해 반대한 것이 아니라 칠정의 기발에 반대한 것이다. 그러나 논쟁이 진행되고 퇴계의 견해를 이해하고 수용하게 됨에 따라, 실천적 관점에서 四端理發, 七情氣發의 구분을 수용하게 된다. 그럼에도 고봉설은 칠정도 리발이라는 七情理發說의 경향이 있는데 이는 조선후기 한주 이진상계열설과도 유사하다. 이런 점들을 고려하면 고봉의 성리설에 대해 기를 중시했다는 기존의 평가는 문제가 있으며 오히려 퇴계처럼 리를 중시한 성리설의 계열에 속한다고 보아야 할 것이다. (shrink)

v. 1. T'oegye, Kobong Yulgok, Ugye ŭi Sadan ch'ilchŏng nonjaeng ŭl chungsim ŭro -- v. 2. Sach'il nonbyŏng ihu Chŏng Kae-ch'ŏng esŏ Chŏng Yag-yŏng kkaji.

This book is an annotated translation, with introduction and commentary, of the correspondence between Yi Hwang (T'oegye, 1500-1570) and Ki Taesung (Kobong, 1527-1572) and between Yi I (Yulgok, 1536-1584) and Song Hon (Ugye, 1535-1598), known as the Four-Seven Debate, the most famous philosophical controversy in Korean Neo-Confucian thought. The most complex issues and difficult tensions in the great Neo-Confucian synthesis are at the juncture between the metaphysics of the cosmos and the human psyche. The Four-Seven Debate is perhaps the (...) most searching examination of this tension ever carried out. (shrink)

Yi Hwang is Korean giant Bo of Neo-Confucianism, Zhu Xi as their study to cases. He was the author severely criticized Wang Yangming. Lee Hwang and odd peak on the "four-terminal impassioned" debate, both sides quoted Zhu's literature as an argument, and from that perspective loyal to Zhu. However, in essence is, Yi Hwang on Mencius' four-terminal, "said Zhu interpretation presupposes a set of different teachings of Confucianism system architecture, though Mencius in line with the text, but out of Zhu (...) Xi's basic position. This is one of the most crucial question is: "truth" can activities? In Zhu's of Science, the reason why is gas, there are not only activities. Based on the literature that: Yi Hwang in the interpretation of Zhu Xi's theory of qi, intentionally or unintentionally give reasons when an activity, while escaping the structure of Zhu Xi of Science. As a leading representative of Korean Confucianism, Yi T'oegye generally adhered to Zhu Xi's philosophical viewpoint, also writing several essays criticizing Wang Yang-ming's differences with Zhu Xi. In the debate between Yi T'oegye and his contemporary, Ki Kobong on the "Four Buddings" and the "Seven Emotions," both sides appealed to Zhu Xi's texts in the belief that they were being faithful to Zhu Xi's standpoint. But in fact, Yi's interpretation of "Four Buddings" presupposes a philosophical framework that differs from that of Zhu Xi. In this Yi deviates from Zhu Xi's standpoint, although he remains faithful to Mencius' texts. The key point of this debate lies in the question of whether "li" can be active. In Zhu Xi's philosophical framework, "li" as the ontological ground for "qi" has mere being but not activity. In this paper I demonstrate that in his interpretation of Zhu Xi's doctrine of "li" and "qi," Yi unconsciously ascribes a kind of activity to "li "and hence deviates from Zhu Xi's original philosophical position. (shrink)

The Li-Primacy Qi-Primacy theory (主理主氣說) of Sung Woogye, Neo-Confucian scholar in 16th century Joseon dynasty, is contained in the 5 letters among the 9 letters of inquiry sent to Yi Yulgok. What Woogye liked to emphasize was, when our mind of Li Qi combination (理氣合物) begins to arise, Li and Qi does not arise separately but Li and Qi become prime (主) or subordinate (從) alternatively to be in a thread. It is that we approach one thread to take the (...) important and say (就一途而取其重而言也). The terms of Li-Primacy Qi-Primacy were in the letter of reply to Kobong (高峰:奇大升) by Yi Toegye. He said the four clues (四端) were Li-Primacy and the seven feelings (七情) were Qi-Primacy. In the inquiries and answers between Woogye and Yulgok, it was developed that moral mind follows Li-Primacy while human selfish desire follows Qi-Primacy. Woogye liked to see human mind and moral mind as the theory of rise and fall (消長說). However, Yulgok liked to grasp them as the theory of beginning and end (始終說). In plain language, the ratio between human mind and moral mind can be 1:99 or 99:1 in the theory of rise and fall, but never be 0:100 or 100:0 as in the theory of beginning and end. (shrink)

1. Tʻaegŭk igisŏl nonʼgu -- 2. Simsŏngjŏng sŏl nonʼgu -- 3. Tʻoegye, Kobong wangboksŏ yŏkhae -- 4. Tʻoegye, Kobong wangboksŏ nonʼgu I -- 5. Tʻoegye, Kobong wangboksŏ nonʼgu II -- 6. Yulgok, Ugye wangboksŏ nonʼgu.

1. Tan'gun sinhwa ŭi wŏnhyŏngjŏk segyegwan kwa p'ungnyu chŏngsin -- 2. Wŏnhyo ŭi hwajaeng sasang kwa muaehaeng ŭi silch'ŏn -- 3. Ŭisang ŭi 'Hwaŏm ilsŭng pŏpkyedo' e nat'anan Hwaŏm sasang -- 4. Chinul ŭi Tono chŏmsu wa Chŏnghye ssangsu sasang -- 5. Sambong Chŏng To-jŏn ŭi Pulgyo paech'ŏk ŭi naeyong kwa sŏngkyŏk -- 6. T'oegye Yi Hwang ŭi ch'ŏrhakchŏk ipchang kwa 'Kyŏng' sasang -- 7. Kobong Ki Tae-sŭng ŭi hangmun chŏngsin kwa ch'ŏrhak sasang -- 8. Ugye Sŏng Hon ŭi (...) Tohakchŏk sam kwa hangmun yŏnwŏn -- 9. Yulgok Yi I ŭi Taedong sahoeron kwa ch'ŏrhakchŏk chihyang -- 10. Sŏgye Pak Se-dang ŭi Sirhakchŏk sayu ŭi kich'o -- 11. Namdang Han Wŏn-jin ŭi yŏksa insik kwa Chosŏn chunghwajuŭi -- 12. Sŏngdam Song Hwan-gi ŭi 'T'aegŭk tosŏl' haesŏk ŭi kibon ipchang -- 13. Kanjŏng Yi Nŭng-hwa 'Chosŏn Togyosa' ŭi haksulsachŏk ŭiŭi wa han'gye -- 14. Manhae Han Yong-un i pon chuch'e ŭi munje wa minjok chagyŏl ŭi wŏnch'ik. (shrink)