李退溪哲學에 있어서의 實在觀

The Theory of Lee T’oegye on Reality

In the ontology of Lee T’oegye, the relation between Ri and Gi is the same as that between Che(體) and Yong(用). The relation. between Che and Yong may be the same kind of relationship between “eidos” and “hylē” in Aristotelian metaphysics, only if Aristotle is interpreted correctly. But, sure, it may be almost the same relation between Hegelian subjectivities (Subjekt) and Hegelian objectivities (Substanz). The relation “Subjekt” and “Substanz” in Hegelian Phenomenology of Mind can be reduced to the relationship between essence (Wesen) and phenomenon (Erscheinug) in his Science of Logic. “Wesen” and “Erscheinung” mediate negatively each other. So do “Subjekt” and “Substanz” too. Hegel’s subjectivities and objectivities (or essence and phenomenon) stand by each other. The continuity of the movement jumping over from a coordination between. a subjectivity and an objectivity to another coordination between a. new subjectivity and a new objectivity must be Hegel’s absolute (das Absolute) coloured in modern fashion. So are Ri and Gi of Lee-T’oegye. The absolutes of Lee T’oegye, that is to say, Ri and Gi mediate each other, stand by each other, jump over from a mediate coordination betwen a Ri and a Gi to another mediate coordination between a new Ri and a new Gi, and so on. Hence, the relation between Ri and Gi does be similar to the relationship between Subjekt and Substanz. If subjectivities and objectivities (or Ri and Gi) are considered not to be different two but the same one, such a thought gets near Heidegger’ s “be”(Sein). Hegel’s “das Absolute” and Heideggcr’s “Sein” are so much familiar with; but “in history” these two run through the same course conversely. The Ri in the origin is named Mugeuk-i-taegeuk(無極而太極). Mugeuk(無極) means “non-being” or negation; Taegeuk(太極) means. “being” or affirmation, and it needs “the Gi in the origin” in order to be affirmation. Therefore, even at the Beginning (Anfang), the Ri in the origin called Mugeuk-i-taegeuk, and the Gi in the origin, mediate also each other, stand also by each other. Ju Hoeam had an indistinct conciousness of the mediate coordination between Mugeuk-i-taegeuk and “the Gi in the origin,” so that, later, a group of his followers insisted that in the beginning Ri “had been” before Gi was not produced yet by Ri, and another group of his followers, on the one hand, could not flee away from the aforementioned point of view, but on the other hand, thought that even in the beginning Ri and Gi had been together “originally and conception-ally.” Lee T’oegye explained clearly that the Ri in the origin called Mugeuk-i-taegeuk and “the Gi in the origin” were to be together conceptionally and originally. Hegel set “the pure being” (das reine Sein) before the “tr ipleness” (Triplizität) built with “non-being” (Nichts), “being” (Sein), “producing” (Werden); but criticized correctly, “das reine Sein” is just the same conception (N.B. the word “conception” which I say here is not Hegel’s “Begriff”) as “Nichts” in the “Triplizität. To speak frankly, “the pure being” is a superfluous thing. Therefore, Hegel’s beginning (Anfang) cannot help getting near the beginning of Lee T’oegye. Ri and Gi on the way of the production go hand in hand always together in such a mode as to leap from a relation to another relationship. Everything is created and disappears on this way. Ri and Gi on the way developing from a Ri combined with a Gi to a new Ri combined with a new Gi are, as it were, Hegelian essence (Wesen) and Hegelian phenomenon (Erscheinung) in the Science of Logic. The mediate coordination between Ri and Gi in advancing is much the same as the mediate coordination between essence and phenomenon in Hegel’s Logic.