『논어』의 극기⋅복례에 대한 게임이론 관점의 해석, 그리고 조선의 도학 정치 = An Interpretation of ‘Restraining the Self’ and ‘Returning to the Rites’ in Analects of Confucius from a Game Theoretic Perspective, and Joseon’s Politics of Learning the Way

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If we ‘restrain the self’(克己) and ‘return to the rites’(復禮) of the time when the sages ruled, everyone will be humane(仁) through which hard times will be overcome. Analects of Confucius conveys Confucius’ messages about how to cultivate virtues in the public sphere by participating in collective actions for ‘restraining the self’ and ‘returning to the rites.’ This article analyzes Analects of Confucius from a game theoretic perspective, and based on this, interprets the meanings having resided in politics of the learning of the Way(道學) in the Joseon Dynasty.
Confucius dealt with collective action to realize public good, which requires charity(愛) and forgiveness(恕) (prisoner’s dilemma game), on the one hand, and collective action to recuperate public bads, which requires trust(信) and ritual propriety(禮) (assurance game), on the other hand. At two levels, that is, Confucius preached varieties of the Way(道) for cooperative collective action guiding to humanity. The learning of the Way originated from Confucius. In the ancient era, sage kings ruled the state in which governance by the Way and political governance were unified.
Instead of having participated in political governance, Confucius tried to convey the Way by learning(學). Therefore the learning of the Way was inherently related to politics. Neo-Confucian scholars during the Song Dynasties highlighted the process of cultivating virtues in the public sphere in the term of learning. They participated actively in politics to accomplish the Way. However, Zhu Xi(朱子) interpreted Analects of Confucius from the perspective of heavenly principles(天理).
From a comparative-historical perspective and from Confucius’ viewpoints, this paper interprets Joseon’s politics of learning the Way. During the Tokugawa period, Ogyu Sorai(荻生徂徠) argued for the separation of the principles of human nature(性理) from heavenly principles. This was the seed embedded with Japan to bring about active coping with the transition to modernity later. In comparison, the scholars of Joseon interpreted the relationship between heavenly principles and the principles of human nature as a relationship between li(理), the Principle, and ki(氣), the material forces. The li-ki debates during the entire period of the Joseon Dynasty opened the space for both universality and diversity of human being.
Jeongam(靜庵) tried to strike a balance between heavenly principles and the Way by “contemplating with li(理)” but “conducting with the Way.” The learning of the Way was brought to the center of politics. The interests of scholars were shifted from philosophical thinking to worldly existence, institutions, and politics. Toegye(退溪) and Yulgok(栗谷) deepened the politics of learning the Way. Toegye laid a political foundation for faction(朋黨) politics in which the moral authority of the learned checked the political authority of king. The person who challenged the political realization of the learning of the Way in the true sense was Yulgok. He recognized human diversity and interpreted seven emotions(七情) as an extension of goodness(善). From a historical perspective, Yulgok understood that the Joseon dynasty had entered into ‘a declining period of middle age’ and insisted that old institutions should be reformed. However, the politics pursued by Yulgok did not go beyond the boundaries of Sarim (士林: Confucian scholars). In the middle of Joseon Dynasty, the transition to modernity was yet to occur, but affinitity to modernity was embedded in the traditions of the politics of learning the Way.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이황, "｢進聖學十圖箚｣. 『退溪先生文集』. 권7"
• 2 이이, "｢辭大司諫兼陳洗滌東西疏｣. 『栗谷全書』 권7"
• 3 조광조, "｢謁聖試策｣. 『靜菴先生文集』. 권2"
• 4 이황, "｢請褒 贈啓｣. 『靜菴先生文集附錄』. 권3"
• 5 이이, "｢萬言封事｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권5"
• 6 이이, "｢聖學輯要 六｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권24"
• 7 이이, "｢聖學輯要 二｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권20"
• 8 "｢緇衣｣. 『예기(禮記)』 下"
• 9 이이, "｢經筵日記(一)｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권28"
• 10 이이, "｢經筵日記 三｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권 30"
• 11 이이, "｢答成浩原｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권10"
• 12 "｢禮器｣. 『예기(禮記)』 中"
• 13 이이, "｢東湖問答｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권15"
• 14 이이, "｢時弊七條策｣. 『栗谷全書』. 권5/잡저2"
• 15 이황, "｢戊辰六條疏)｣. 『退溪先生文集』. 권6/소(疏)2"
• 16 조광조, "｢復拜副提學時啓九｣. 『靜菴先生文集』. 권4"
• 17 조광조, "｢弘文館請罷昭格署疏｣. 『靜菴先生文集』. 권2"
• 18 이황, "｢兩先生四七理氣往復書上篇卷之一｣. 『고봉전서 5』"
• 19 이이, "｢代白參贊仁傑 疏｣. 『栗谷全書』 권7"
• 20 성백효, "論語集註. 天" 한국인문고전연구소 2013
• 21 배병삼, "한글세대가 본 논어" 문학동네 2002
• 22 윤사순, "한국유학사⎯한국유학의 특수성 탐구. 상" 지식산업사 2012
• 23 이승환, "퇴계 리발(理發)설의 수반론적 해명―고봉과의 사단칠정 논변을 중심으로―" 34 : 191-237, 2010
• 24 "중용장구서(中庸章句序)"
• 25 "중용(中庸)"
• 26 위잉스(余英時), "주희의 역사세계" 글항아리 2015
• 27 이기동 역해, "주역강설" 성균관대학교 출판부 2006
• 28 금장태, "조정암과 조선조의 선비정신" 4 (4): 1180-1194, 1978
• 29 김돈, "조선중기 정치사 연구" 국학자료원 2009
• 30 이상성, "조광조. 한국 도학의 태산북두" 성균관대학교 출판부 2006
• 31 안재흥, "정치경제 레짐의 변동에 대한 집단행동 이론 시각의접근 : 서유럽 작은 복지국가의 비교사례 연구" 27 (27): 145-174, 2018
• 32 마루야마 마사오(丸山眞男)/, "일본정치사상사연구(日本政治思想史硏究)" 한국사상사연구소 1995
• 33 황의동, "율곡철학연구(栗谷哲學硏究)" 경문사 1987
• 34 이동희, "율곡 이이" 예문서원 2002
• 35 "논어(論語)"
• 36 박종연 역, "논어" 을유문화사 2006
• 37 안재흥, "근대로의 이행과 역사 비교방법" 246 : 75-110, 2020
• 38 기대승, "고봉전서 5" 민족문화추진위원회 2007
• 39 기대승, "고봉전서 4" 민족문화추진위원회 2007
• 40 한유, "고문진보(古文眞寶)" 傳統文化硏究會 1994
• 41 Elster, Jon, "Ulysses and the Sirens" Cambridge University Press 1984
• 42 Skyrms, Brian, "The Stag Hunt and Evolution of Social Structure" Cambridge University Press 2004
• 43 Pocock, J. G. A., "The Machiavellian Moment Revisited : A Study in History and Ideology" 53 : 49-72, 1981
• 44 Polanyi, Karl, "The Great Transformation" Beacon Press 1944
• 45 Axelrod, Robert, "The Evolution of Cooperation" Basic Books 1984
• 46 Wolin, Sheldon S, "Politics and Vision. Continuity and Innovation in Political Thought" Little, Brown and Company 1960
• 47 Bol, Peter K, "Neo-Confucianism in History" Harvard University Press 2008
• 48 Elster, Jon, "Making Sense of Marx" Cambridge University Press 1985
• 49 Hobbes, Thomas, "Leviathan" Cambridge University Press 1996
• 50 Sen, Amartya K, "Isolation, Assurance and the Social Rate of Discount" 81 (81): 112-124, 1967
• 51 North, Douglass C, "Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance" Cambridge University Press 1990
• 52 Cole, Daniel H., "Institution Matter! Why the Herder Problem Is Not a Prisoner’s Dilemma" 69 (69): 219-231, 2010
• 53 Eggers, Daniel, "Hobbes And Game Theory Revisited : Zero-Sum Games in the State of Nature" 49 (49): 193-226, 2011
• 54 Ostrom, Elinor, "Governing the Commons" Cambridge University Press 1990
• 55 Binmore, Ken, "Game Theory and the Social Contract Volume I" The MIT Press 1994
• 56 Koselleck, Reinhart, "Futures Past on the Semantics of Historical Time" Columbia University 2004
• 57 Kumar, Krishan, "From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society" Blackwell 1995
• 58 Hirschman, Albert O, "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty" Harvard University Press 1970
• 59 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, "A Discourse on Inequality" Penguin Books 1984
• 60 정도전, "<佛氏因果之辨>. ｢佛氏雜辨｣. 『三峰集 下』. 권9"
• 61 이동준, "16세기 한국 성리학파의 철학사상과 역사의식" 심산 2007