석재(碩齋) 윤행임(尹行恁)의 육왕학(陸王學) 비판에 대한 인식형성 배경과 그 목적 = The Purposes and the Background of the Formation of Critical Cognizance in Suk-Jae Yoon Haeng-Im`s (碩齋 尹行恁) Criticism of the study of Lu-Wang

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Suk-Jae Yoon Haeng-Im (碩齋 尹行恁, 1762~1801) was a literary man who lived during King Jeong-jo`s era. While a range of academic traditions of Kyung·Hang (that is, Seoul & local area) were ongoing, he succeeded the academic tradition of Han Won Jin`s (韓元震, 1682~1751) Orthodox Neo-Confucianism style, as handed down from family study. Specifically, Yoon Haeng-Im held the position of Ho Theory in the Horak debates, which was a controversial issue within orthodox Neo-Confucianism. However, he tends to criticize Nak Theory. His main purpose in his criticism of the study of Lu-Wang regards the use of the method for establishing a system of Ho Theory against the Horak debates that arose within orthodox Neo-Confucianism. This shows the difference from their general position about the existing orthodox Neo-Confucianism scholars` criticisms of the study of Lu-Wang. Yoon Haeng-Im`s formation of a critical cognizance against the study of Lu-Wang was influenced by Han Won Jin. Yoon Haeng-Im criticisms included the concepts of ``honoring the moral nature``, ``not yet an issue of feeling and thought [Wei-fa], already expressive of feeling and thought [Yi-fa]``, ``Sim is Li`` and ``Chi-Liangzhi``, and Buddhism; Lu Jiu-yuan and Wang Shou-ren were typical scholars of the study of Lu-Wang and were Wang Shou-ren`s disciples (Wang Gen & Yan jun and others, who were disciples). They insisted on this view, and through their theory about the left-wingers of Yang-ming, Yoon Haeng-Im expressed strong criticism of Nak Theory, including references to an unaroused mind itself and the pure good of Horak debates and the problems of good and bad and Seong-Beom Dongyi together with the use of the logic of the study of Lu-Wang style. His criticism of Nak Theory led to divisions within orthodox Neo-Confucianism itself more with regard to the inside logic of orthodox Neo-Confucianism than to any outside enemy (such as the study of Lu-Wang). This filtered into the study of Lu-Wang. The utilization of his criticism of the study of Lu-Wang to crack down on orthodox Neo-Confucianism shows another side of its characteristics, compared to the logic of the general criticism between orthodox Neo-Confucianism and the study of Lu-Wang in the central academic world in the late 18th century. Therefore, the results here can serve as a good guideline with which to understand the scholarship and the history of ideas of those times.