극재(克齋) 신익황(申益愰)의 도설자료와 성리사상 연구
A Study on Geukjae Shin Ik-hwang’s Iconographic Data and Neo-Confucianism
본 논문은 극재 신익황이 남긴 도설 자료에 근거하여 그의 리기론과 심성론을 살피는 데 목적을 두고, 율곡의 이론을 비판하고 퇴계의 이론을 적극 수용했던 그의 태도와 관점을 밝히고자 했다.
신익황은 초년에는 율곡학을 수용했지만 이후 퇴계의 이론을 수용하고 율곡의 학설을 비판한 것으로 알려져 있다. 이 논문은 신익황이 남긴 7종의 도설과 성리학적 서술들에 근거하여 율곡의 이론에는 비판적인 태도를 취하고 퇴계의 이론을 적극적으로 수용·계승한 신익황의 성리학적 관점을 검토했고, 논의 결과는 아래와 같다.
1. 신익황의 문집 『극재집』에는 리기·심성에 관한 7종의 도설이 실려 있으며 대표적인 도설은 <리기성정통간도 1(理氣性情通看圖 1: 非無氣而理爲主)>, <리기성정통간도 2(理氣性情通看圖 2: 非無理而氣爲主)>이다.
2. 신익황은 성리학 이해의 가장 중요한 문헌을 주돈이의 『태극도설』로 여겼고, 리기론에서는 리기불상잡과 리기불상리를 각각 문맥에 따라 나누어 보아야함을 강조했다.
3. 심성론에서는 퇴계 이황의 <심통성정도>를 계승하고, 특히 ‘혼륜’, ‘척발’, ‘분별’ 등의 용어로써 퇴계의 학설을 적극 계승했다.
4. 리기와 성정의 관계는, ‘기가 없는 것은 아니지만 리를 주로 하는 경우[非無氣而理爲主]’와 ‘리가 없는 것은 아니지만 기가 주가 되는 경우[非無理而氣爲主]’로 나누어 말해야 할 당위를 논증함으로써 퇴계의 관점을 수용하여 내면화했음을 보여주었다.
5. 정암 나흠순과 율곡 이이의 리기성정에 관한 주요 서술들을 비판하며 비판의 당위와 근거를 주희와 퇴계의 이론에서 찾음으로써 퇴계의 이론을 옹호하고 계승했다.
This paper aims to examine the theory of Ligi and Simseong based on the iconographic data left by Geukjae Shin Ik-hwang, and to clarify Shin Ik-hwang’s attitude and perspective in actively accepting Toegye’s theory while criticizing Yulgok’s theory based on the literature.
Shin Ik-hwang is well known in our academic field, but there is little research on his Seongli philosophy. In particular, Shin Ik-hwang initially accepted Yulgok’s Seongli philosophy, but later accepted Toegye’s theory and criticized Yulgok’s theory, so his academic transformation and the resulting succession of Toegye’s philosophy require sufficient research.
This paper examines Shin Ik-hwang’s Seongli philosophy perspective in which he took a critical attitude toward Yulgok’s theory and actively succeeded Toegye’s theory based on the seven iconographic data and Seongli philosophy descriptions left by Shin Ik-hwang.
The results of the discussion are as follows.
1. Shin Ik-hwang’s anthology, Geukjae-jip, contains seven types of iconographic data, and the representative Iconographies are and .
2. Shin Ik-hwang considered Zhou Dunyi’s the most important text for understanding the theory of Ligi and Simseong.
3. In the theory of Ligi, Shin Ik-hwang emphasized that ‘Ligibulsangjab’ and ‘Ligibulsangli’ should be divided according to their contexts.
4. In the theory of Seong, Shin Ik-hwang inherited Toegye Yi Hwang’s , and actively inherited Toegye’s doctrine, especially with terms such as ‘honryun’, ‘cheokbal’, and ‘bunbyeol’.
5. In the relationship between Li and Seongjeong, Shin Ik-hwang showed that he accepted and internalized Toegye’s viewpoint by arguing that we should distinguish between cases where Li is pure and cases where Gi is mixed.
6. Shin Ik-hwang criticized Na Heum-sun and Yi I’s major descriptions of Li and Seongjeong, and defended and inherited Toegye’s theory by finding the justification and basis for criticism in the theories of Ju-hui and Toegye.
This paper aims to examine the theory of Ligi and Simseong based on the iconographic data left by Geukjae Shin Ik-hwang, and to clarify Shin Ik-hwang’s attitude and perspective in actively accepting Toegye’s theory while criticizing Yulgok’s theory based on the literature.
Shin Ik-hwang is well known in our academic field, but there is little research on his Seongli philosophy. In particular, Shin Ik-hwang initially accepted Yulgok’s Seongli philosophy, but later accepted Toegye’s theory and criticized Yulgok’s theory, so his academic transformation and the resulting succession of Toegye’s philosophy require sufficient research.
This paper examines Shin Ik-hwang’s Seongli philosophy perspective in which he took a critical attitude toward Yulgok’s theory and actively succeeded Toegye’s theory based on the seven iconographic data and Seongli philosophy descriptions left by Shin Ik-hwang.
The results of the discussion are as follows.
1. Shin Ik-hwang’s anthology, Geukjae-jip, contains seven types of iconographic data, and the representative Iconographies are and .
2. Shin Ik-hwang considered Zhou Dunyi’s the most important text for understanding the theory of Ligi and Simseong.
3. In the theory of Ligi, Shin Ik-hwang emphasized that ‘Ligibulsangjab’ and ‘Ligibulsangli’ should be divided according to their contexts.
4. In the theory of Seong, Shin Ik-hwang inherited Toegye Yi Hwang’s , and actively inherited Toegye’s doctrine, especially with terms such as ‘honryun’, ‘cheokbal’, and ‘bunbyeol’.
5. In the relationship between Li and Seongjeong, Shin Ik-hwang showed that he accepted and internalized Toegye’s viewpoint by arguing that we should distinguish between cases where Li is pure and cases where Gi is mixed.
6. Shin Ik-hwang criticized Na Heum-sun and Yi I’s major descriptions of Li and Seongjeong, and defended and inherited Toegye’s theory by finding the justification and basis for criticism in the theories of Ju-hui and Toegye.
동양철학연구회
서신여자대학교 김세종
