This study aims at clarifying philosophical context of samun ranjeok(斯文亂賊) debate which was caused by Sabyeonrok(思辨錄) written by Park Sedang(朴世堂, 1629-1703), a scholar and civil official.
Park was main focus and motive of Noron's crticism in the deba ...
This study aims at clarifying philosophical context of samun ranjeok(斯文亂賊) debate which was caused by Sabyeonrok(思辨錄) written by Park Sedang(朴世堂, 1629-1703), a scholar and civil official.
Park was main focus and motive of Noron's crticism in the debate against Soron. What made him a man of the debate was the publication of Sabyeonrok which was a result of his own critical reading of Confucian classics such as The Four Chinese Classics, The Book of Odes, and Book of History.
On its publication, the debate between Noron and Soron became fiery and settled itself as major academic debate concerning Confucian orthodoxy in the history of Chosun. In the process of the debate, Kim Changhyeop (金昌協, 1651-1708) distinguished himself by writing Ronsabyeonrokbyeon(論思辨錄辨) - Before that, repeating appeals by scholars like Hong Gyechok(洪啓迪) made Sukjong summon to refute Sabyeonrok, and by the king's designation Yi Gwanmyeong(李觀命) and Kwon Sangyu(權尙游) wrote Sabyeonrokbyeon(思辨錄辨) to criticize Sabyeonrok in detail. Kim Changhyeop's writing was an answer to the Kwon Sangyu's request for supplementing their work and it drew him into main stage of the debate.
Ronsabyeonrokbyeon remains as single only document to grasp genuinely academic context of the debate from Noron side. Thus, by comparing Park's Sabyeonrokbyeon, Kim's criticism, and original viewpoint of Zhuxi, we can evaluate the legitimacy of Noron side's criticism of Park's stance, which was blamed as "to profane the saints and defame the classics", and as to deny Zhuxi's viewpoint thus to destroy the orthodoxy.
Analysis of Sabyeonrok does not provide any evidence of Park's developing new realm of thought different from Zhuxi's Neo Confucianism, notwithstanding his interpretation of the classics are different from Zhuxi's. Even in his direct criticism of Zhuxi's interpretation, his main interest is laid in realizing Ri(理) and his epistemology remains in traditional Neo Confucian framework.
The above analysis leads us to the conclusion that the Noron's criticism against Park was overrated; Noron scholars as well as Chinese scholars after Zhuxi also presented their own interpretation different from Zhuxi's commentaries and arguments. Criticism against Park can be seen as a political attack rather than an academic refutation, because the contents of his work did not betray orthodox Neo Confucianism, even if his attitude was problematic.
Meanwhile, Kim's criticism against Park was focused at the latter's logical inconsistency or misreading of Zhuxi's works, basing his standpoint on his own interpretation of Zhuxi's works while being influenced by Noron scholars's studies of Neo Confucianism and theories of Ri and Ki(理氣論) since Yi Yi(李珥) down to Song Siyeol(宋時烈). He did not criticize Park for being different from Zhuxi, but for Sabyeonrok's strong possibility of derailing from the orthodoxy.
Both Park and Kim presupposed the infallibility of saints and tried to grasp the real intent of them. Their effort was centered upon interpretation of the Confucian classics, i.e. the words of saints, and realization of them in the world. Difference between the two laid in the fact that Kim supposed Zhuxi as one of the saints, refraining from denying Zhuxi's words and just trying to reinterpret the words when his own viewpoint was different from Zhuxi's, but Park denied Zhuxi's viewpoint when inconsistencies occurred while admitting Zhuxi's significance of genuine heir of the Confucian saints.
Conclusion of the above analysis suggests that we are urged to interpret the samun ranjeok debate in the light of inner debate within Neo Confucianists in Chosun Dynasty, rather than in the light of the confrontation between Neo Confucianism versus a new kind of Confucianism.