退溪와 南冥의 學風과 學問體系

To speak most broadly about the two representative Neo-Confucians of the mid-sixteenth century Cboson, Toegye(Yi Hwang, 1501-1570) focused 00 the themes of nature and principle and self-cultivation, whereas Nammyung(Cho Shik, 1501-1572) focused on those of self-cultivation and righteousness. One may explain such difference by their opposite personalities: the one had a mild temper with sympathy and tolerance, while the other a strong temper with strictness and critical power. Basically, however, these two had a common ground in the system of Neo-Confucianism(Tohak), and their difference occurred in the course of searching for a more rational and efficient way of achieving the same goal. Therefore, the difference is significant in that it presented the complementary models of Neo-Confucian learning as could be realized in that period, and that it diversified, thereby, the mode of understanding and responding to the tines as well as the method of learning. So in comparing Toegye and Nammyung`s traditions of learning, I aim at drawing attention to the diversifying and complementary meaning of the difference rather than to the contradictory and rivalrous meaning of it.<BR> The difference between Toegye and Nammyung in their traditions of learning can be summarized in three points. Firstly, by carrying the question of attentiveness(jing) through his methodology of learning, Toegye established a tradition centering around the self-cultivation theory. Nammyung, in his part, emphasized the coherence of attentiveness and righteousness(yi) and thereby established a tradition which, though based on the self-cultivation theory, took the righteousness theory seriously to confirm the standard of value necessary for the social practices of self-cultivation. Secondly, Toegye`s program proceeds from intellectual activities of deliberation and distinction to self-cultivation, whereas Nammyung`s starts from self-cultivation and ends at the social practice of the rule of right(wang-dao). Thirdly, it was a progressive way of reformation aiming at preparing the foundation for the peaceful furore that Toegye endeavored to educate the young intellectuals with an intense focus on the self-cultivation theory. On the other hand, it was a radical way tolerating no injustice that Nammyung demanded the government a drastic reformation criticizing its contradictory operations directly. Such points of difference provide us the background for understanding the facts that Toegye, having resigned from his official position, exerted himself on learning and self-cultivation and that Nammyung, though never accepting an official position, kept raising social issues in a vigorous and strong voice.<BR> Different academic traditions of Toegye and Nammyung were closely connected with different attitudes toward the social realities of the times: endeavoring at self-cultivation vs. trying to save the world; providing education for the future vs. trying to realize the ideals in the prese