Post by kinoeugene on Mar 21, 2005 2:51:09 GMT -5
To understand the parties in middle of Chosun, you have to understand the korean Confucianism in that era.
The main streams are the school of YoungNam and the school of KiHo.
** Terminology
YoungNam ; the KyungSang area and is the hometown of Cho Sik and Yi Hwang who are the famous and great Confucianists.
KiHo ; KyoungKi and ChungChoeng area(middle of korea) and is the hometown of Yi Ii and Seong Hon who are also the famous and great Confucianists.
Yi ; could be transfered as "the basic principles". Ideological and immaterial concept.
Ki ; could be transfered as "the atmospheric force of nature". Physical concept.
Confucianism in Chosun explained the nature of the universe with Yi and Ki.
Yi Hwang focued on Yi.
Yi and Ki is different from each other but they are in interdependence at the same time.
Yi means the basic rule which rules Ki and Ki is a physical thing which has materials, so Ki is embodied in the rules of the Yi.
According to Yi Hwang, Yi comes out and then Ki follows Yi. This means an idealogy takes precedence over an act.
He claimed the pure rationality of human is the absolute goodness, so following the pure rationality is the most great virtue.
Ryu Sung Ryong is the most well-known diciple of Yi Hwang.
The Easterners is base on the school of YoungNam.
On the other hand, Yi Ii focused on Ki.
He claimed that every phenomenon comes out differently by the act of Ki because only Ki has own activeness.
So, Yi is just a general principle that supervises Ki.
For instance, human's feeling or consciousness is formed by human's internal Ki which is stimilated by external factor.
As a result, when you turn internal mind into goodness, automtically your natural aspect of goodness will be revealed.
Yi Ii valued the practical ethic above the ideological ethic.
The Westerners are based on the school of KiHo.
I'm not sure I described those philosophical concepts correctly with my poor english.
Anyway, I wanna to say that both of them had philosophical background and tried to apply their study to real politics.
Although it didn't bring happy situations, they argued or discussed and held each other in check.
I think the result wasn't happy but the process of the policy dicision was democratic and productive.
what do you think?
The main streams are the school of YoungNam and the school of KiHo.
** Terminology
YoungNam ; the KyungSang area and is the hometown of Cho Sik and Yi Hwang who are the famous and great Confucianists.
KiHo ; KyoungKi and ChungChoeng area(middle of korea) and is the hometown of Yi Ii and Seong Hon who are also the famous and great Confucianists.
Yi ; could be transfered as "the basic principles". Ideological and immaterial concept.
Ki ; could be transfered as "the atmospheric force of nature". Physical concept.
Confucianism in Chosun explained the nature of the universe with Yi and Ki.
Yi Hwang focued on Yi.
Yi and Ki is different from each other but they are in interdependence at the same time.
Yi means the basic rule which rules Ki and Ki is a physical thing which has materials, so Ki is embodied in the rules of the Yi.
According to Yi Hwang, Yi comes out and then Ki follows Yi. This means an idealogy takes precedence over an act.
He claimed the pure rationality of human is the absolute goodness, so following the pure rationality is the most great virtue.
Ryu Sung Ryong is the most well-known diciple of Yi Hwang.
The Easterners is base on the school of YoungNam.
On the other hand, Yi Ii focused on Ki.
He claimed that every phenomenon comes out differently by the act of Ki because only Ki has own activeness.
So, Yi is just a general principle that supervises Ki.
For instance, human's feeling or consciousness is formed by human's internal Ki which is stimilated by external factor.
As a result, when you turn internal mind into goodness, automtically your natural aspect of goodness will be revealed.
Yi Ii valued the practical ethic above the ideological ethic.
The Westerners are based on the school of KiHo.
I'm not sure I described those philosophical concepts correctly with my poor english.
Anyway, I wanna to say that both of them had philosophical background and tried to apply their study to real politics.
Although it didn't bring happy situations, they argued or discussed and held each other in check.
I think the result wasn't happy but the process of the policy dicision was democratic and productive.
what do you think?
