2023/06/30

알라딘: 한국 인문학의 서양 콤플렉스 이진우 1999

알라딘: 한국 인문학의 서양 콤플렉스


한국 인문학의 서양 콤플렉스 - 오늘의 지성을 찾아서 2 
이진우
(지은이)민음사1999-08-10




Sales Point : 57

절판 판권 소멸 등으로 더 이상 제작, 유통 계획이 없습니다.
절판
보관함 +


- 절판 확인일 : 2017-03-09

238쪽
책소개
이진우 교수는 한국 학계의 서양 콤플렉스를 신랄하게 들춰내는 한편, 우리 지성계의 숨통을 옥죄고 있는 식민성의 정체를 밝혀내고 있으며, 한국적 학문의 독자적 패러다임을 모색하는 학자들의 기존 작업해서 허와 실을 명쾌하게 구별해내고, 앞으로의 올바른 방향을 제시한다.

한국 학문이 식민지화되어 있고 주체성이 없다는 비판은 많지만, 어떻게 나아갈 것인지에 대해서는 논의가 없는 현실에서, 생산적인 논쟁의 방향 제시를 시도하고 있다는 점에서 의의를 찾을 수 있다.

한국의 학계에서 자생적 패러다임을 모색하는 거의 모든 사람들은 지나치게 역사와 전통을 강조한다. 한국적 학문을 하지 못하는 이유는 모두 '전통의 단절' 때문이라는 것이다. 하지만 그것을 어떻게 해석하고 소화할 것인지에 대해서는 아무도 말하지 않는다. 이진우 교수는 우리의 문제가 여기에 있다고 말한다.

이 교수는 우리가 창의적으로 계승해야 할 전통을 단순한 과거의 잔재가 아니라 현재에 활동적인 문화의 힘이라고 역설한다. 정체정은 본래 정태적인 것이 아니라 역동적인 것이기에 특수와 보편, 역사와 전통의 변증법적 대결이 없이는 그 모습을 그려낼 수 없다. 그는 현재 유행하고 있는 독자적 패러다임을 모색하는 시도들을 세 가지 유형으로 분류하고 비판적으로 검토하고 있다.


목차


0. 들어가는 말: 세기말의 반시대적 시대 비판

1부

1. 이 땅에서 철학하는 나는 누구인가
2. 왜 <지금 그리고 여기서> 철학을 하는가 - 철학적 글쓰기에 관한 어느 철학자의 편지
3. 한국인과 한국 문화의 정체성은 무엇인가
4. 좌파는 진보적이고 우파는 보수적인가

2부

5. 인문<학>이 죽어야 인문 <정신>이 산다 - 기술 시대의 지식과 지식인의 미래에 관하여
6. 포스트모던 사회와 인문학의 과제 - 이데올로기 비판에서 문화 비판으로
7. 포스트모더니즘과 동양 정신의 재발견
8. 한국 철학의 역사성과 무역사상 - 서양 철학 수용 100년, 우리는 무엇을 기억하고 무엇을 망각해야 하는가?
9. 세계 체제의 도전과 한국 사상의 변형 - 독자적 패러다임을 위한 문화 상대주의의 전략


책속에서


사람들은 우리가 퇴계를 읽는 대신에 칸트를 읽는 것을 서양 추수주의라는 이름으로 질타하지만, 그들은 칸트가 우리에게는 퇴계만큼이나 가깝고 퇴계는 칸트만큼 멀다는 사실을 망각하고 있는 것이다. 지성계의 식민성과 서양 추수주의를 타박하기 이전에 우리는 먼제 퇴계를 읽지 않는 이유를 곰곰이 생각해 보아야 한다.

전통 사상이 자본주의와 기술 문명에 의해 지배받고 있는 현실의 문제를 읽어내는 데 있어서 별 의미와 설득력이 없다는 것이 아마 가장 커다란 이유일 것이다. 그렇다면 우리의 문제는 자본주의와 기술 문명이 지배적인 우리의 현실 환경을 비판적으로 조명하고 또 스스로 구성해 갈 수 있는 언어와 사상을 우리의 전통으로부터 발전시키지 못한다는 사실이다. 그것이 우리 지성계의 숨통을 옥죄고 있는 식민성의 정체이며 본질이다. 접기



저자 및 역자소개
이진우 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

연세대학교 독문과를 졸업하고 독일 아우크스부르크대학교에서 철학 석사·박사 학위를 받았다. 계명대학교 철학과 교수와 동 대학 총장, 포스텍 교수, 한국니체학회 회장, 한국철학회 회장 등을 역임했으며 현재 포스텍 명예교수이다. 지은 책으로 《불공정사회》, 《의심의 철학》, 《인생에 한번은 차라투스트라》, 《니체의 인생 강의》, 《한나 아렌트의 정치 강의》, 《지상으로 내려온 철학》, 《탈이데올로기 시대의 정치철학》 등이 있고, 옮긴 책으로 니체의 《차라투스트라는 이렇게 말했다》와 《비극의 탄생·반시대적 고찰》, 아렌트의 《인간의 조건》과 《전체주의의 기원》(공역) 등이 있다. 접기

최근작 : <[큰글자도서] 전쟁은 일어나지 않는다는 착각>,<전쟁은 일어나지 않는다는 착각>,<9명의 철학자와 9번의 철학수업> … 총 94종 (모두보기)
이진우(지은이)의 말
(...) 한 가지 분명한 것은 이러한 인식들이 모두 서양 콤플렉스에 젖어 있다는 사실이다. 서양을 무조건 모방하는 것도 문제이지만, 서양과의 부정적 대립을 통해 "우리 것"을 강조하면서도 막상 "우리 것"을 내세우지 못하는 것은 그 폐쇄성 때문에 더욱 문제이다.

다양한 문화를 창조적으로 융합시켜 "우리 것"을 만들겠다는 강렬한 욕구가, 살아남기 위해서는 서양을 모방할 수밖에 없다는 현실적 압박에 의해 억압되고 착종되어 나타나는 서양 콤플렉스가 아니고 무엇이겠는가?
====
[eBook] 이진우 - 한국 인문학의 서양 콤플렉스? | 시사만인보 122
강준만 (지은이)
개마고원2017-05-08


전자책정가
1,500원
[신간리뷰] '한국인문학의 서양콤플렉스'
중앙일보
입력 1999.08.19 00:30


지면보기


인문학에 표현된 '우리 것' 은 어떤 모습인가.
20세기와 함께 시작된 서양철학의 '진군' 을 우리는 어떻게 견뎌냈는가.

서양철학 전공자인 이진우 계명대 교수는 '한국인문학의 서양콤플렉스' (민음사.8천원)에서 21세기로 가는 전환기에 다시금 표출되는 이같은 문제에 진지하게 맞섰다.


이교수는 자신이 한국인이라는 사실을 자긍심을 가지고 내세울 수 있을 만한 고유의 문화적 핵심 요소 가운데 하나로 '정 (情)' 을 내세운다.

그러나 서양합리주의의 영향을 받은 우리 인문학은 '정' 을 비합리적.비이성적인 것으로 여겨왔다고 비판한다.


이교수는 서양철학을 배타적으로 여기는 것 역시 서양철학에 대한 콤플렉스라고 지적하며, 서양과 동양적 사유에서 발견되는 보편성을 찾아내야 할 것을 주장한다.


고규홍 기자
====
출판저널 990905
논쟁서평
 
 
여전히 서양콤플렉스가 두려운 포스트모더 니 스트
이진우 지음《한국 인문학의 서양콤플렉스》를 읽고

https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO199944948264976.pdf
 
학문의 보편성, 세계화시대의 개방성에 이어 최근 한국인으로서 자기성찰을
슬며시 드러내는 것은 미봉적 구색맞추기에 다름아니다. 그는 여전히 특수의 고민이 체화된 바 없는 담론의 보편주의자에 머문다. 우리의 학문 상황에서 노자와 하이데거, 다산과 칸트를 읽는 것이 왜 다르며 그 차이를 규명하는 것에 어떤 뜻이 있는지 모른 체하고도 사회철학자를 자칭하는가. 이른바 '포스트모더니스트 철학자' 란 그런가.
이진우 교수의 성취와 장점이 적지 않은 데다, 청탁 받은 사정도 있으니 서평을 생략하고 몇몇 테마에 한정해 그를 소략히 비판한다 이 교수는 우리 학문의 위기가 우리 근현대사의 특이성에 그 연원을 둔다는 점을 인정하되, 오히려 그 연 원에서 '문화적 조형력'과 '다원주의적 생산성' 을 읽어내자고 한다. 원칙상 좋은 제안이다. 그러 나 그는 여전히 학문의 보편성과 학문지형의 특 수성을 제대로 가려주지 않는다.
“이제는 잊어야 한다. 우리의 역사가 단절되 고 전통이 파괴되었다는 사실을." 그러나 뒤늦게 《친일인명사전》이 화제가 되는 것처럼 망각의 슬기는 낯뜨거운 기억과 철저한 반성 뒤에서야 자연히 생겨나는 법이다. 반성의 이후를 내다보 는 그의 명찰(明察)에 어떤 진정성이 있는지도 문제지만, 반성의 문턱조차 숨가빠하는 우리 학 계의 지배구조는 왜 건드리지 않는가. 심지어 건 드리는 시도를 폄하하고 왜 한결같이 주류만을 좇는가. 그는 근자 '반구제기(反求諸己)' 의 제스 처를 내비치지만 내게 그것은 '어설픈 물타기' 로 보인다.
학문의 보편성, 세계화 시대의 개방성에 이어 최근 한국인으로서의 자기 성찰을 슬며시 드러 내는 것은 내게 미봉적 구색 맞추기에 다름 아니 다. 그는 여전히 특수의 고민이 체화된 바 없는 담론의 보편주의자, 혹은 기껏해야 월러스틴이 말한 '반유럽 중심의 유럽중심주의자(내재적 발 전론자)' , 혹은 손자(孫子)가 말한 '반간(反間)' 의 범위에 머문다. '내가 포八드모더니스트인 까 닦은 서양 이성에 대한 자기반성을 기회 삼아 우 리 사유의 전통으로부터 새로운 이성의 가능성 을 탐색하고 싶었기 때문이다!' 그는 이처럼 자 신의 본색을 흘리고 다닌다.
나도 몇 번 충고했지만 이 교수는 여전히 익명 의 두루뭉수리 비판을 영악하게 계속한다. 한가 해지면 이 '영악' 에 대해서 긴 글을 쓰겠지만 이 책에서도 그는 영락없이 유럽에서 파견나온 학 문의 고문관이다. 누구를 익명으로 누르고 누구 를 거명하는가 하는 문제는, 특히 인문학의 글쓰 기에서 예사의 것이 아니다. 가령, 그는 여기저기 내 글을 거의 그대로 옮기며 비판하지만 막상 는 생이 벌어지면 '김영민 교수를 의도하지 않91 단다. 그의 책《이성은 죽었는가》(1998)의 참고도 서 수백권 중 국내인의 것은 강영안 교수의 것 한권 뿐이다. “노자를 읽으면 어떻고 하이데거를 읽으면 어떠한가”라고? - 도대체 후안무치다.
나도 훈화는 질색이니 이 점은 제쳐두자. 의당 우리는 노자도 읽고 하이데거도 읽어야 하겠지 만 우리의 학문상황에서 노자와 하이데거, 다산 과 칸트를 읽는 것이 왜 다르며, 그 차이를 규명 하는 것에 어떤 뜻이 있는지를 모른 체하고도 사 회철학자를 자칭하는가. 이른바 '포스트모더니 스트 철학자' 란 그런가.
그는 “서양과의 부정적 대립을 통해 우리 것 을 강조하면서도 막상 우리 것을 내세우지 못하 는 것은 그 폐쇄성 때문에 더욱 문제"라면서, 이 것도 '서양 콤플렉스' 라고 못박는다. 나는 이 비 판에 열낼 일은 없지만 졸지에 서양 콤플렉스를 뒤집어 쓰게 된 동료들을 위해서 한마디. 이것은 그야말로 뭐 묻은 개가 뭐 묻은 개 나무라는 격 이다. 이처럼 투박한 것은 오로지 지면이 작은 탓. “나 역시도 서양 콤플렉스를 극복하였다고 자신있게 말할 수는 없다”고? '보편성을 모시고 다니는 자칭 포스트모더니스트 사회철학자인 그 도 서양 콤플렉스가 두려운가.
-----

김영민
전주 한일대학 인문사회과학부 부교수 저서〈탈식민성과 우리 인문 학의 글쓰기〉,〈진리 • 일리 • 무리〉의
 
24 출판저널 990905










Embracing and Embodying God’s Hospitality Today in Asia✽ Kim, Heup-young✽

 Madang, Vol. 23 (June, 2015), 87-106

Embracing and Embodying God’s

Hospitality Today in Asia✽

Kim, Heup-young✽

Introduction

Confucius said in the beginning of the Analects:

Is it not a pleasure, having learned something, to try it out at due intervals? 

Is it not a joy to have friends come from afar? 

Is it not gentlemanly [the way of a profound person] not to take offence when others fail to appreciate your abilities? (The Analects 1)1)

These famous statements fittingly express this great event of the 7th Congress of Asian Theologians. The Congress of Asian Theologians

 

※ A keynote lecture at the 7th Congress of Asian Theologians, July 2, 2012, Korean Methodist University, Seoul, South Korea, included in the Proceedings in CTC Bulletin 28:1 (December, 2012).

He is professor Emeritus of Theology at Kangnam University and Visiting Professor of Religion and Science at Hanshin University, South Korea. He is a past president of the Korean Society for Systematic Theology, was a co-moderator of the 6th and 7th Congress of Asian Theologians (CATS), and is a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR). 

1) Cf. D. C. Lau, Confucius The Analects (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1979), 59.

(CATS) is established precisely to give Christian scholars and theologians in Asia the opportunity to enjoy these pleasures. Today, we have friends who have come from afar, from the East, the West, and the South. We are going to celebrate the pleasures of learning something together, trying it out at due intervals. With this genuine joy as a Confucian-Christian host, I express my deepest welcome to you, friends from four corners. Furthermore, the theme of this congress is hospitality. 

When I was requested by the continuing committee to give this talk, I was puzzled as to whether I am the right person to do this. I was afraid that I would violate the attitude of a profound person dictated in the statements as the third condition, by pushing our dear friends to appreciate my abilities. Furthermore, so far, I have not been so much hospitable as suspicious and critical of the so called “hospitality”of expansive Christianity. My preparation for this talk was not so enjoyable but rather painful. But it offered me an opportunity to recall and reassess my Christian journey from the beginning. And it radically challenged my theology, still under construction, which I call a theology of Dao. 

Whatsoever mistakes have been made in historical practice, hospitality is by all means “the practice by which the church stands or falls.”But does my theology of today well suit Christian hospitality in its original meaning? This question demanded my repentance and theological reviews. This morning I will share some of them with you, hoping that it may serve as a case to evoke fruitful discussions for the congress. I begin with two episodes, critical moments for my theological journey, that awakened me but also made me wander through a long maze of hermeneutics of suspicion against Western theological traditions.

Episode One: Mother’s funeral: Triumphant Christian Evangelism? In the preface of my volume, Christ and the Tao (CCA), I wrote:

The most dramatic incident happened at the funeral of my beloved mother. Using my status as the eldest son of my family, which is in fact a Confucian authority, I succeeded in performing her funeral in a Christian style instead of the traditional Confucian one. This act, of course, involved an evangelical motive to make use of this event as an opportunity to proclaim the Good News to these stubborn Confucian relatives, in accordance with the evangelical teaching of the charismatic Korean Church I attended in New York City. However, the result of this change was tragic. My relatives became outrageous and received this as an offensive act, my obvious betrayal of their impeccable tradition. After the funeral, my eldest uncle, the most respected person in my clan, privately summoned me and said with a mournful face: “I don’t care what kind of faith you have. But never have I expected that you will be the one who breaks up our impeccable tradition for a thousand years like this!”This remark struck me like a thunder and made me realize that there is something wrong in my understanding of the new faith in an either-or dualism. In fact, this was the moment I committed myself in the study of Christian theology. My essays here, after all, are some of my theological attempts to respond to this event. )

The church’s attempt to make my mother’s funeral an opportunity for evangelism, by proclaiming Good News to a great number of my relatives, brought about the tragic results in my life, particularly in my relationship with my family and relatives. It became one of the chief reasons for me to become a theologian to study what was wrong with it. This is a case of instrumental use of hospitality that is not so benevolent. Aggressive Christians misled the innocent Christian faith of a new convert, ignorant in theology, and used Christian hospitality as a means for triumphant evangelism and mission. 

Since then, I have frequently felt that I am a stranger (or a boundary person) both in my native Confucian community and in my newly adopted Christian faith communities. The aggressive, sometimes too kind but bothering, hospitality of charismatic Christians was a reason motivating my conversion. However, since then, frankly speaking, I have not experienced much genuine hospitality from churches and theological communities in my fatherland. They did not seem to truly welcome me, but were rather arrogant, exclusive, disrespectable of others (people, cultures, religions, etc.), and reluctant to give up the position and the power of being a host, which is a prerequisite for Christian hospitality. Even more rigorously than Korean Confucians who generally hold a genealogy for longer than one and an half millennia, they proudly show off their Christian privileges with a relatively very short period of Christian experiences (less than two centuries), such as three or four generations of Christianity. 

Episode Two: A Church in a Southern US Seminary: Hermeneutics of Suspicion. 

My hermeneutics of suspicion against Western Christianity began in earnest with an experience I had when I was a freshman in a seminary in the Southern USA. At that time, I was a new convert, through a series of radical spiritual experiences and so full of religious enthusiasm. I had nothing but a strong faith in Jesus Christ. It happened on a Sunday morning just before Christmas, when I was walking toward the beautiful chapel in the campus to attend their magnificent worship service. The sound of elegant music came out from the inside of the building, and the white snow covered all over the surface of the church. It was a really lovely scene for a blessed white Christmas. People, all well dressed and with happy faces, were marching toward the chapel. 

All of sudden, however, there appeared an unexpected vision to my eyes. I saw an entirely different scene from that of an otherwise joyful Lord’s Day morning. Under the fine-looking church building, I saw a red fluid, recognizable as human blood! What was it? I asked. Immediately, I could realize that it was the blood of Native Americans (the first nation people) whom white Christian solders massacred and eliminated so that this traditionally Caucasian church could be established. The church looks majestic in appearance: it had a terrible underside history. 

It was built on the bloody sacrifice of Native Americans who welcomed the migration of European Christians and showed extraordinary hospitality to welcome these strangers to settle in the new land. In return for the hospitality of the native hosts, these Christian guests not only brutally killed and expelled them but also confiscated their lands to become the selfclaimed hosts of the so-called continent of the great “discovery”of the new world (?). Furthermore, these new hosts theologically and biblically justified their terribly inhuman activities. This is the real story behind the Thanksgiving Day which American missionaries taught us to celebrate as an essential Christian festival. What did they want us to celebrate for? White Christians’cunning betrayal of the innocent indigenous hospitalities of Native Americans? Or Triumphant Christianity’s conquest of the land through genocidal massacres of the natives? 

Furthermore, is this the only story of its kind in the history of Christian mission and evangelism? How about the Crusade in the Middle East and the Mission in Latin America, South Africa, Asia, and so on? Do you know the notorious 3Ms; missionaries, militaries, and merchants? With the excuse of proclaiming good news, missionaries came to East Asia (Japan, China, and Korea), sailing on threatening warships with heavily armed militaries. And when a native country was compulsorily opened, merchants followed to begin prosperous trades such as gold-mining and slaves. Isn’t it the real story of the 19th century mission of Western churches in Asia? After knowing this factual story (the awakening of truth), what can you, Christians, say about hospitality? What do you mean by “Christian hospitality”in this post-Christian era? 

Christian hospitality, therefore, demands first of all metanoia, genuine repentance. Repentance is a precondition for discussing hospitality. This is not only related to Western Christians but to all Christians, all followers of Jesus Christ. After this introduction, we can now discuss what hospitality means theologically today in Asia. This morning I share some insights to reconfigure the notion of Christian hospitality.

Hospitality

Hospitality is the foundation of Christian faith and an unconditional command of God. Henri Nouwen stated it well, “if there is any concept worth restoring to its original depth and evocative potential, it is the concept of hospitality.” ) Mathew 25:31-46 unmistakably describes an eschatological vision for the judgment of Jesus Christ in the metaphors of sheep and goat. Particularly, it contains an absolute decree for a preferential care for the poor, the thirsty, strangers, the afflicted, the sick, the disabled, and those in prison. There is no excuse by which one can avoid this responsibility. In the Old Testament, stories such as Abraham’s hospitality to strangers enabling Sarah, his barren wife, to produce a son (Isaac), imply God’s commandment, “You should treat strangers as my angels and messengers”(see Gen. 18:1-33).4) In the New Testament, Christ made it even stronger,  “You should treat them as me”by saying “whatever you did for one of the least of those brothers of mine, you did for me”(Mt. 25:40). This context of the Christian notion of hospitality makes sense of a provocative claim of minjung theology that we should regard minjung (the oppressed and alienated people) as Christ.

Christian Pohl, the author of Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, said, “Hospitality is not optional for Christians, nor is it limited to those who are specially gifted for it. It is, instead, a necessary practice in the community of faith.” ) A key Greek word for hospitality, philoxenia, is a composite term combining phileo (meaning love) and xenos (meaning stranger). Etymologically and practically, in the New Testament, hospitality means “Love strangers!”The notion of hospitality, therefore, is not “a minimal moral component”nor “a nice extra”for Christians nor something to do with the professional “hospitality industry.” )“Hospitality is the lens through which we can read and understand much of the gospel, and a practice by which we can welcome Jesus himself.” ) It relativizes every Christian doctrine and articulation of metaphysical, ideological, and systematic thought. In terms of the social location, strangers are more important theologically than others. The notion of Christian hospitality demands Christians to pay a preferential option to the poor, strangers, the alienated, the disabled, those in prison, and so on. In this cosmic age, this preferential care for strangers should be further extended to embrace and embody God’s transcendent agapeic love toward the world, including human nature, other lives, and the eco-system on the earth.

Theological Anthropology

The notion of Christian hospitality restores the original doctrine of man (humanity), namely theological anthropology. The passage in Genesis 1:27 states that God created the human according to the image of God (imago Dei). Further, it says that God created human beings, not one but two at the same time. Thus, this passage does not support the modern definition of the human person as an isolated being (ego) separated from others but “the man with the fellow-man”(Adam and Eve). ) Karl Barth argued that the prototype of humanity created in the image of God stands for a joyful Mitmenschlichkeit,”i.e., co-humanity, fellow-humanity, being-in-encounter, being-in-togetherness, or being-for-others. He said that “man is the cosmic being which exists absolutely for its fellows.”The nature of humanity involves “freedom in the co-existence of man and man in which one may be, will be, the companion, associate, comrade, fellow and helpmate of the other.”

This definition of humanity as being-in-encounter and being-intogetherness renders a remarkable parallelism to the Confucian definition of humanity as rén (仁). Rén, the cardinal virtue of Confucianism, generally translated as benevolence, in its Chinese character literally means two people. The Confucian anthropology, conceiving humanity as co-humanity, amazingly converges with the Christian one. Compare this with Barth’s statement that “man is indestructibly as he is man with the fellow-man.” The human person in Confucianism also does not mean “a self-fulfilled, individual ego in the modern sense, but a communal self or the togetherness of a self as ‘a center of relationship.’” ) In both Christian and Confucian traditions, being human originally does not refer to an individual set or persona of substances or essences but a being in interpersonal relationship. ) The original theological anthropology is not based on substantialism and essentialism, but on relationship with God, fellow humans, and nature (in East Asian terms, among Heaven, Earth, and Humanity (天地人); in other words, in a theanthropocosmic relationship). 

The Christian notion of hospitality maximizes this relational anthropology in action. It radically challenges us to deconstruct the Western habits of substantial thinking of both classical logos theologies and modern praxis theologies. ) Hospitality basically refers to a practice in personal relationship, neither a propositional doctrine for orthodoxy nor a systematic ideology for orthopraxis. The practice of hospitality is a necessary condition to enter into the real meaning of life in the faithful response to the invitation of the Triune God who graciously invites us to the real life of true humanity in and through the sacrificial hospitality of Jesus Christ. The unconditional decree of hospitality is in fact a blessing for us, by which Christ taught us how to open the door and receive God’s welcoming to enter into the genuine (holy) life. Pohl confessed, “Over and over again, I’ve come to see that in God’s remarkable economy, as we make room for hospitality, more room becomes available for us for life, hope, and grace.” ) Hospitality, as universal benevolence unconditionally executed in the imitation of the lifeact of Jesus, is a sufficient condition for radical humanization, the realization of true humanity as being-in-encounter, being-in-togetherness, and being-for-others. As a radical humanization, hospitality refers to a process par excellence of sanctification and self- cultivation. Furthermore, this universal benevolence does not have limits and boundaries, “embracing neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies … the good and gentle, but also … the evil and unthankful … every soul God has made”(John

Wesley). )

Inclusive Humanism: The Christian notion of hospitality radically challenges us to revise the exclusive humanism dominant in the modern West since Descartes’dualist rationalism. Rather, it endorses such inclusive humanism as traditionally supported by Confucianism. Whereas exclusive humanism “exalts the human species, placing it in a position of mastery of and domination over the universe,”inclusive humanism “stresses the coordinating powers of humanity as the very reason for its existence.” Confucian scholar Cheng, Chung-ying criticized that “humanism in the modern West is nothing more than a secular will for power or a striving for domination, with rationalistic science at its disposal.”“Humanism in this exclusive sense is a disguise for the individualistic entrepreneurship of modern man armed with science and technology as tools of conquer and devastation.”In contrast, the inclusive humanism that is rooted in Confucianism “focuses on the human person as an agency of both selftransformation and transformation of reality at large. As the selftransformation of a person is rooted in reality and the transformation of reality is rooted in the person, there is no dichotomy or bifurcation between the human and reality.” )

This daring Confucian argument sounds far more relevant to the original Christian meanings of humanity (being-in-encounter and being-forothers) and hospitality (universal benevolence) than to modern theological anthropologies based on exclusive humanism. Over against the essentialist and exclusivist view of the human person, inclusive humanism stresses the

“between-ness”or “among-ness”of the person. (The Chinese character for the human being 人間 connotes in-between-ness). In inclusive humanism, a person is not so much a static substance as a network of relationships in constant change (Yì). ) Inclusive humanism based on the ontology of humanity as being-in-relationship or being-in-togetherness was splendidly expressed by a Confucian scholar in the 11th century, Zang Zai.

Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and even such a small creature as I finds an intimate place in their midst. Therefore, that which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature. All people are my brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions.… )

Christology:

The Christian notion of hospitality reinforces Christology as the foundation of theological anthropology. Jesus Christ, as the personification par excellence of the imago Dei, is the supreme paradigm of humanity as cohumanity or a being for others. The human being is “modeled on the man Jesus and his being for others … God created him [man] in his own image in the fact that he did not create him alone but in the connexion and fellowship … God himself is not solitary … [but the triune] God exists in relationship and fellowship”(as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). ) Hence, the paradigm of humanity as being-in-togetherness is nothing other than a copy or a mirror of the intratrinitarian life of the Triune God. Between the being of God (as Creator) and the being of human (as creature), “there is correspondence and similarity;”namely, “analogia relationis”(i.e., an analogy of relation). This analogy of relation was completely fulfilled in the humanity of Christ, the root paradigm of humanity. In this fulfillment, Jesus was by no means an exclusive humanist, but on the contrary showed a most inclusive form of humanism. Christ was the prototype of being in between-ness or among-ness (or as the “connecting principle”); between human-to-God, human-to-human, and human-to-nature.

Reconciliation in these relationships in which Jesus is in between-ness, among-ness, and the connecting principle has been achieved by Christ’s sacrificial acts, which is in fact divine hospitality. The incarnation of Jesus and his crucifixion on the cross were the practices par excellence of embracing and embodying God’s hospitality. In a nutshell, the sacrificial life-act of Jesus Christ is God’s salvific hospitality to the human race. In sum, hospitality is a practice of fulfilling the mission of being human as being-in-between and being-for-others, imitating and following the great examples of hospitality Jesus presented us throughout his life. 

As Jesus practiced it, hospitality demands a radical denial of one’s desires and self-empting (the spirituality of kenosis) for the sake of others. It resonates with an attitude of respect and reverence (敬, gyeong in Korean or jìng in Chinese) rather than an aggressive love (in one’s own way). Gyeong stands at the heart of Korean Neo-Confucian thought culminated by Yi Toegye (1501-1570). It entails not only epistemic humility but also profound sensitivity to the sufferings of others and things in nature. Gyeong signifies the state of human mind-and-heart ready to realize its ontological psychosomatic union with others and nature, to fulfill the theanthropocosmic vision (the communion among the triad of Heaven, Earth, and humanity, 天地人). By attaining this state of mind, a person can possess an ability to hear the voices and feel the pain and sufferings of people and nature (the virtue of commiseration) and can exercise beneficence (rén) the attributes of which Confucianism calls Four Beginnings, namely, humanity, propriety, righteousness, and wisdom. )

Trinity:

The notion of hospitality is ultimately based on the immanent and the economic Trinity and their perichoresis. Hospitality is a triune welcome of humanity in the life of the Trinity (the immanent Trinity). The triune God sent their only son to embrace humanity, which is an economy of the Trinity. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ is an embodiment of the Triune hospitality for the world. The Crucifixion of the God-man Jesus was the climax of the drama of divine hospitality. The blessings and joy of the Resurrection indicate the gifts to be received by the person who condescends, crossing boundaries, limitations, differences, and idiosyncrasies, to execute hospitality to others including strangers. The perichoresis (the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father) notes the prototype of humanity as co-humanity, being-in-fellowship, being-intogetherness, or being-in-between. Hospitality as an active participation in the process of radical humanization is an act of copying this Triune coinherence (perichorsis) on our existences. 

Creation is a masterpiece of God’s hospitality to beings in the universe. Through Jesus Christ, God opened the door to enable us to enter into the life of the Triune immanence. The Economic Trinity is a supreme act of divine hospitality welcoming humanity in the world. Our hospitality in response to this gracious Triune hospitality is in fact for us to open the gateway to the glorification of humanity beyond sanctification. The Trinity embodied divinity into humanity and embraced humanity in divinity in and through the theanthropocosmic drama of Jesus Christ, which is the mystery of salvation. And it is in fact the ultimate foundation and source for hospitality. As a Christian mission is ultimately the mission of God (Missio Dei), hospitality is finally not a human, ecclesiastical, nor religious deed, but an infused reflection of God’s love in us. “God is already working in the lives of the people who come and in the lives of those who welcome them.” ) Doing hospitality does in fact signify embracing and embodying God’s hospitality, by participating in the magnificent, gracious cosmic drama of the Trinity. The living God becomes the dialogical and ontological partner of the human, which Barth called “God’s sovereign togetherness with man.” ) God’s deity, which already has “the character of humanity,” “includes”our humanity. 

New Paradigm of Theology: a Theology of Dao (Theo-dao)

The notions of Christian hospitality corrects the defective habit of Western Christian thinking since its contextualization with Greek thought substantialism, essentialism, and either-or dualism - both on a doctrinal, metaphysical level and on an ideological, societal level. The fundamental issue is not about essences at all. In fact, there is nothing like an unbreakable building block, but rather the natural sciences continue to prove that the structure of the universe is instead basically relational as in the relationship between protons and electrons. The foundation of the world does not consist in unchanging substantial essences, but in relationship. As we have seen already, humanity is particularly and by definition relational. The Christian notion of hospitality announces that relationship is more important than everything else. Thus Christian theology should be relational so as to embrace and embody the altruistic and salvific partnership of Jesus and the gracious hospitality of the Triune God.

The Christian notion of hospitality, I may argue, endorses that a theology of the Dao (Way) is a more proper theological option than classical, dogmatic logos-theologies and modern, liberationist praxistheologies. ) For both logos-theologies and praxis-theologies are basically formulated on a substantialist/essentialist and on either-or (either the logos or the praxis) thinking. The former is more doctrinal, while the latter more ideological. In contrast, the tao by definition refers to the unity of knowing and acting and transcends the dualism of logos and praxis. In terms of the end part of First Corinthians 13, if faith is for the logos-theology (a faithseeking-understanding, focusing on orthodoxy, the right doctrine for the church) and if hope is for the praxis theology (a hope-seeking-practice on orthopraxis, the right action for the Kingdom of God), then love is for the dao theology (a love-seeking-dao, on orthotao, the right way of companionship). Certainly, hospitality is basically a matter to do with love rather than with faith and hope. “Our hospitality both reflects and participates in God’s hospitality. It depends on a disposition of love because, fundamentally, hospitality is simply love in action.” )

The Christian notion of hospitality that is displeased with the inhumanness of an institutional and professional treatment commends us to revisit the doctrine of a personal God. The Christian God in the Bible is not so much metaphysical (as often appeared in the logos theology), nor ideological (as in the praxis theology), as relational (interpersonal or intersubjective) in the fullness of personal connection with the complexity of human emotion. God incarnated in Jesus Christ is not so much a sovereign, omnipotent, and apathetic host of divinity, but a fragile, vulnerable, and sensitive guest in humanity. God in Jesus Christ is a human person, a companion on the road with us, as common pilgrims, sojourners, and strangers in the world. Thus, a relational theology of the Way (Dao) is a more proper paradigm for Asian theology! God in Jesus Christ is after all the hospitality of the Triune God toward us to enable us to return to the original humanity in harmony with the divinity and others. Hospitality is the dao (way) of humanization par excellence. Rather than doctrine or ideology, thus, the theology of the Tao focuses on the way of life together with a preferential option to the yin side of the universe including strangers, minjung, and dalit, which precisely means a radical humanization. A letter from L’Arche stated that “a society, to be truly human, must be founded on welcome and respect for the weak and the downtrodden.” )

New Interpretation

The notion of hospitality, the cornerstone of Christian faith, needs a new interpretation - a hermeneutics of reconstruction - in this post era of socalled post-colonialism, post-Orientalism, and post-Christianity (postChristendom). Not to mention the genocidal exploitation of European Christians in both the North and South American continents! After the experiences of the 19th century colonialism of Western Christianity, furthermore, we, Asians, are particularly suspicious of Christian hospitality in a positive and expansive manner. Before mentioning any type of hospitality, we would ask of the host a total kenosis of oneself (selfnegation), a full respect or reverence for guests, and a partnership among strangers, just as the Triune God did for us in and through the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus completely self-emptied himself until death, paid the fullest respect to the people washing their feet, and lived among the minjung comforting and healing them so as to accomplish his mission of “embracing and embodying God’s hospitality”for us. We, Asian disciples of Christ, need such an imitatio Christi today in Asia! That is to say, “Embracing and Embodying God’s Hospitality Today in Asia,”the theme of the 7th Congress of Asian Theologians. 

Hospitality, an unconditional decree to be a Christian, needs a spirituality of emptiness or nothingness rather than that of substantial, essential, or metaphorical something; traditionally speaking, it should be apophatic rather than kataphatic, via negativa rather than via positiva. At this juncture, we should note side-effects of the golden rule, the core of Christian faith and Confucianism. The positive golden rule (Love others as yourself), favored in the Christian West, can be misread as “Love others in your own ways!”An American scholar studying East Asian thought, Robert E. Allinson, made the critique that the positive golden rule caused the attitudes of “epistemological immodesty”and “ethical hubris,”and makes one prone to treating others as “strangers”or “enemies”in a conflictcomplex (Enemies, Strangers, or Partners).24) Greek dialectical dualism reinforced by an expansive nomadic ethos underlined these attitudes of the conflict and aggressive model. ) These erroneous attitudes would be a rootcause for the modern failure of the arrogant Western Christian mission in Asia. 

However, (East) Asia is rather the world of harmony, exemplified by the Great Ultimate in the yin-yang relationship. In the yin-yang interdependent, dialogical relationship, both yin and yang are always interchangeable and exist together. The relationship between a host and a guest would better be understood in this dynamic relation. As yin can become yang anytime, it is always possible for a host to turn into a guest, and vice versa. Their existential status may look different, but ontologically, however, they are the same partners among strangers. In this world of rén (being-in-togetherness), the habit of the negative golden rule (Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you!) is more appreciated, as

“epistemological modesty”and “ethical humility”are crucial virtues for treating others as ‘guests’or ‘friends’in an effort to bring harmony in the world. Christian hospitality in the mode of the positive golden rule (Love others in my own way!) could bring out maleficent side-effects. Rather an attitude of the negative golden rule (Love others in their own ways!) would be more preferable in order to avoid epistemological immodesty and ethical hubris. As Christian Pohl said, “Humility is a crucial virtue for hospitality, and especially important in keeping hosts’power in check. Power is a complicated dimension of hospitality.” ) Yes! However, here in Asia, we need a more fundamental change of attitude. As Yale theologian Miroslav Volf said better, “the will to give ourselves to others and ‘welcome’them, to readjust our identities to make space for them, is prior to any judgment about others, except that of identifying them in their humanity.” )

God is the only unconditional host. The nucleus of the Christian story is that the sovereign host-God emptied Godself completely to become a vulnerable human-guest and a stranger in this world. The being becomes a non-being (the being in non-being) so that we non-beings can become the being (a non-being in being). This is a key to understand the mystery of Jesus, i.e., God’s hospitality par excellence. The theme of Embracing and Embodying God’s Hospitality Today in Asia would be ultimately summarized in the question, “What would Jesus do to strangers and others in Asia if he came in this age of migration, globalization and science today?”What would be do and how would he welcome immigrant workers, multi-cultural marriages, refugees, the disabled, prisoners, people in other religions, other beings on this susceptible planet, possible extraterritorial (ET) guests from outer space, beings which come into existence by manipulations of science and technology, and so on? In the Asian context, furthermore, the hospitality list should include not only those in the present and the future but also those in the past, particularly ancestors.

This week, we, Asian theologians, have gathered together in Seoul to discuss these important issues. The CATS is so far the only existing platform and theological space in the world where Asian theologians freely speak for themselves, collectively together, without feeling timid against yet dominant Western theological discourses. Although it is a meeting of a small number, I believe, it will become a historically significant event for Christians and churches in both Asia and the rest of the world, particularly anticipating the 10th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches to be held in Busan next year.

Asia, called the home of world religions, is the most diversified continent culturally, religiously, ideologically, politically, and perhaps economically. It is the predicted place for the so called “clash of civilizations.”Perhaps, the Korean peninsula would be a pinnacle of such a clash or an encounter; in a nutshell, both between the West and the East and between the North and the South. The symbol of the Korean national flag, the Great Ultimate in the dialogical yin-yang, would metaphorically prophesy this time in history. The duality of yin-yang is not permanently fixed but always interchanging. It is not an “either-or,”but a “both-and.”It represents dynamic phenomena in temporality to create and compose the ultimate wholeness, by not denying their distinctions, particularities, and idiosyncrasies. 

Finally, hospitality is based on “God’s Great Yes!”for us to join the Reign of God. It is our response to God’s invitation to the heavenly banquet, in terms of sacrament, Eucharist. Christian hospitality is to celebrate this grace by inviting and welcoming friends, colleagues, neighbors, aliens, sojourners, the afflicted, and the disabled in response to this divine blessing. We, Asian theologians, as yet strangers in Christian theology, need to continue a corporate endeavor to open our spaces to “sing our own songs” and “own up to our own metaphors.”At the same time, we need to let fellow friends in Asia do the same thing as humble partners among strangers. Jesus, both a human stranger and the divine host, is the Christ who has established once and for all the ontological space for us to be fully human. The Congress of Asian Theologians is the space where we Asian theologians gather together to sing our own song and own up to our own metaphors. We, members of the CATS, are all partners among strangers. Today, we gathered here to satisfy the command of God to attain our fullness as humans. Now, let’s begin our fascinating discussions. May God dearly bless you all, and may His hospitality abundantly prevail throughout the congress! 

Abstract

Hospitality is based on “God’s Great Yes!”for us to join the reign of God. It is our response to God’s invitation to the heavenly banquet in terms of sacrament, Eucharist. Christian hospitality is to celebrate this grace by inviting and welcoming friends, colleagues, neighbors, aliens, sojourners, the afflicted, and the disabled in response to this divine blessing. Asian theologians, as yet strangers in Christian theology, need to continue a corporate endeavor to open our spaces to “sing our own songs”and “own up to our own metaphors.”At the same time, we need to let fellow friends in Asia do the same thing as humble partners among strangers. Jesus, both a human stranger and the divine host, is the Christ who has established once and for all the ontological space for us to be fully human. Thus, Asian Christians need to sing our own song together and own up to our own metaphors in order to accomplish the command of God to attain our humanity in fullness (rén, co-humanity). 

Key Words

Christian Hospitality, Theological Anthropology, Christology, Trinity,

Inclusive Humanism, Dao, Rén, Kyeong

Bibliography

Allinson, Robert E. “The Ethics of Confucianism & Christianity: the Delicate Balance,”Ching Feng 33:3 (1990): 158-73.

Kart Barth. The Church Dogmatics (CD), Vol. III/2. Trans. G. W. Bromiley, et. al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960.

. The Humanity of God. Trans. John Newton Thomas and Thomas Wieser.

 

Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960.

Chan Wing-tsit. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press, 1963.

Kalton, Michael C. To Become a Sage: The Ten Diagrams on Sage Learning by Yi T’oegye. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Kim Heup Young. Wang Yang-ming and Karl Barth: a Confucian-Christian Dialogue. Lanham, New York, London: University Press of America, 1996. 

. Christ and the Tao. Hong Kong: Christian Conference of Asia, 2003.

 

Lau, D. C. Confucius The Analects. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1979.

Liu, Shu-hsien and Allinson, Robert E. Harmony and Strife: Contemporary Perspectives, East & West. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1988.

Nouwen, Henri. Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life. New York: Image Books, 1975.

Pohl, Christian D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999. 

Wilhelm, Richard. Trans. The I Ching or Book of Changes. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967.

Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: a Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Wesley, John. Works of John Wesley, Vol. 10: Letters, Essays, Dialogue, Addresses. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker House, 1978. 

Received : 2015. 2. 20 Revised : 2015. 6. 1 Accepted : 2015. 6. 15


Xiaomei Chen Occidentalism: A Theory of Counterdiscourse in Post Mao China

xchen_intro_occidentalism_english.pdf

OCCIDENTALISM: A THEORY OF COUNTERDISCOURSE IN POST-MAO CHINA 
 
Xiaomei Chen 陳小眉 
美国加州大学戴维斯校园东亚语文系,比较文学系教授 
 
 
Originally published in 1995 by Oxford University Press, Occidentalism was the first book to develop the concept of “Occidentalism,” and the first comprehensive study of Occidentalism in post-Mao China as a response to post-colonial theories. It offers an insightful account of the unremittingly favorable depiction of Western culture and its negative characterization of Chinese culture in post-Mao China since 1978. Chen examines the cultural and political interrelationship between the East and West from a vantage point more complex than that accommodated by most current theories of Western imperialism and colonialism. Going beyond Edward Said's construction in Orientalism of cross-cultural appropriations as a defining facet of western imperialism, Chen argues that the appropriation of Western discourse---what she calls Occidentalism"---can actually have a politically and ideologically liberating effect on contemporary non-Western culture. She maintains that simplistic allegations of Orientalism frequently found in current critical discourses seriously underestimate the complexities of intercultural and multicultural relationship. Using China as a focus of her analysis, Chen examines a variety of cultural media, from contemporary Chinese television documentary to Shakespearean drama, to Western modernist poetry, and to the Chinese Diaspora fictions and reportage. She thus places Sinology in the general context of Western theoretical discourses, such as Euro-centrism, postcolonialism, nationalism, modernism, feminism, and literary hermeneutics, showing that it has a vital role to play in the study of Orient and Occident and their now unavoidable symbiotic relationship. Occidentalism presents a new model of comparative literary and cultural studies that re-envisions cross-cultural appropriation and post-colonialist debates.  
 
Taking account of arguments against cross-cultural appropriations--above all that they perpetuate potentially harmful "mis-perceptions" about the "Other"--Chen demonstrates, in Chapter One, that the positive image of a 
"scientific and modern West" so strikingly portrayed in the controversial television series River Elegy (河殇
1988) has too easily—and facilely--been characterized as an act of Western "cultural imperialism," as that term is now defined in Post-colonial and Third World discourses.  Considered within the specific cultural and historical context of post-Mao society, however, such "Occidentalism" can also be understood as a powerful anti-official discourse, which has been persistently employed by the Chinese intelligentsia to express what is politically impossible and ideologically inconceivable.  The Western "Other" thus serves as a metaphor for a political liberation against ideological oppression within a totalitarian society.  What might rightly be considered at times as a global, "central" discourse of "Occidentalism" can also sometimes be used or "misused" as a locally "marginal" or "peripheral" discourse against the centrality of the dominant power in a particular culture.  Under these special circumstances, therefore, arguing absolutely against cultural imperialism can be politically dangerous since it inevitably, if unintentionally, supports the status quo of a ruling ideology, which sees in the Western "Other" a potentially powerful alliance with an anti-official force at home.       
 
To further illustrate the positive uses of things Western in contemporary China, Chapter Two examines the 
Occidentalist theater in post-Mao China and argues that the production and reception of plays by Shakespeare, 
Ibsen, and Brecht serve as a counter-cultural Other in the Chinese intellectuals' anti-official discourse; thus it challenges the predominant ruling ideology which emerged after the Cultural Revolution.  Chen argues that the popularity of those otherwise remote Occidental texts lies in their existential proximity to Chinese audiences in the early 1980's, who "mis-read' Macbeth, King Lear, Measure for Measure, The Merchant of Venice, Peer Gynt (by Ibsen) and other such texts as immediately relating to their traumatic experiences during the Cultural Revolution.  Through these successful productions of Occidental plays, the Chinese people were by no means self-inflicting a European colonialism upon themselves.  On the contrary, it is the Orient, which "antiimperialistically" used the Occident to achieve its own political aims at home through deliberate acts of "misunderstanding" of the Occidental Other. It is for such a political end that the Chinese dramatists, critics, and audiences can rightly justify their "anti-imperialistic" means, with which they have successfully fragmented the Maoist ideological superstructure in the very re-presentation and dramatization of a Western Other.   
 
Indeed, one can argue that the entire modern Chinese history and its problematic and paradoxical relationship with a Western Other can be seen as a highly theatrical event, in which the Chinese people play the roles of the Occidental Others in Shakespearean, Ibsenique, or Brechtian drama.  The Chinese actors and actresses assume 
Occidental voices, wearing Occidental costumes, while speaking, all the time, for the political interests of the Oriental Self. The Chinese actors and actresses have carried out dramatic dialogues with the Chinese audiences, who are drawn into the Occidental plots precisely because they see in these very plots the stark reality of contemporary China.  Thus such recent dramatic history, which makes prominent a presence of Occidentalist stage in a post-colonialist country such as contemporary China, should not be slighted as a mere incident of a self-infliction of colonialism by the colonized people themselves.  It should rather be appreciated as an intricate event in which the East and the West are brought together by their own specific cultural and historical conditions in which neither the East nor the West are--or should be--fundamentally privileged over its Other. 
 
Chapter Three explores the critical debate on Menglong Movement (蒙胧诗) in which the menglong poets in post-Cultural-Revolutionary China called for the replacement of traditional Chinese poetics by the importation of Western modernism.  Both the menglong poets and the critics who repudiated their "non-revolutionary" poetry, however, "misread" Ezra Pound's modernistic aesthetics even in giving it lip service; both claimed that Western modernism was a "self-expressive" movement, a term that Western scholars would more easily associate with the poetic conventions of romanticism that Pound had sought to displace by importing the "Chinese" ideograph. From this perspective, it is impossible to speak of contemporary Chinese literature and its reception in the 1980s without taking into serious account the indispensable role that, as a form of ideology in the voice of a counter Other, Western modernism has played in the Chinese debate on menglong poetry. Yet such acts of "misprision," nevertheless, are to be appreciated, not regretted, since they provided the only way that Western modernism could make sense to the Chinese readers and writers whose worldview and aesthetic innovations were conditioned by the cultural and historical specifics of early post-Mao Chinese society.   
 
The paradoxical and dialectical history of this cultural exchange is further studied in Chapter Four, which focuses on the production and reception of Gao Xingjian's (高行健) Wildman (《野人》,1985), a play which has been regarded as one of the best productions of contemporary China in the 1980s. The theatrical form of Gao's play has been viewed both as fundamentally Western and Chinese, as showing the influence of traditional Chinese drama and, in contrast, as written under the influence of Artaudian and Brechtian aesthetics (which is itself based on a "misunderstanding" of Chinese operatic theater).  In Chapter Five, Chen traces a parallel case in the study of Thornton Wilder's Our Town, which has also been claimed by both traditions--the Western and the Chinese operatic traditions alike.  Yet it was these Occidental dramatists' theories and practices that helped shape the newest formation of dramatic theory in China as reflected in Huang Zuolin's search for an "Essentialist Theater" which attempts to combine the best of the dramatic traditions both from the Orient and the Occident.   
 
Chen argues that both of these cases offer us insight into the role that the "misconception" of the Other plays in the creation of cross-cultural East-West cultural contacts and literary history in our century.  Both the Chinese appropriation of aspects of Western culture and the Western appropriation of facets of Chinese culture have been motivated by a desire to forsake what is indigenous to each culture and to incorporate into it apparently alien elements.  Orientalism and Occidentalism are thus revealed as complex phenomena functioning in 
Western and non-Western culture. Neither can be ignored either by the student of Chinese or Western literature.  These chapters lead to the conclusion that for Sinology, world literature and culture can no longer be ignored or assigned a secondary status as mere source or influence.  Neither can they be simply labeled as expressions of Occidentalism and hence dismissed as acts of cultural imperialism.  Especially in view of the increasing exchanges between cultures, Sinology cannot exist without Western contacts and without the contexts of Western texts.  It is not possible to speak of a "purely" Chinese tradition, nor of Western tradition that is 
"uncontaminated" by things Chinese.  This situation points to yet another important aspect of the way that Occidentalism can be viewed as a positive and liberating force in recent Chinese literature and culture.  
 
Yet to emphasize the politically liberating force of Occidentalism in the formation of literary history in contemporary China is not to ignore that Occidentalism is muti-faceted, and can at times become ideologically limiting and confining.  Like every human utterance caught within the prison-house of language, Occidentalism as a counter discourse contains seeds of its own contradiction, subversion, and destruction. Therefore, Chen stresses in Chapter Six the problematic nature of Occidentalism by recounting a profound irony in an earlier episode in modern Chinese dramatic history.  Chen argues that on the one hand, male May Fourth playwrights considered writing about women's issues of liberation and equality important political and ideological strategies in their formation of a counter-tradition and a counter-canon against the Confucian ruling ideology.  In such a peculiar "male-dominated-feminist" discourse, they found in the image of the West a powerful weapon against the predominant ruling ideology of Confucianism.  When the West is so used as a strong anti-official statement against Confucian traditional culture, this Occidentalist discourse can be regarded as politically liberating.  On the other hand, however, in view of the particular historical conditions of the May Fourth period, which is characterized by its embracing of an anti-imperialistic agenda as its top priority, the appeal to the West needs to be understood in the contexts of the complex gender politics in relation to the issues of nation and state.  
 
The revised, expanded, and second edition of Occidentalism published in 2002 by Rowman & Littlefield includes a new preface, foreword by Dai Jinhua, and new chapter on Chinese diaspora writings in the Chinese language. Unlike the majority of Chinese American Literary studies that focus on English-language materials and one’s experience living in America, Chen discusses those writers who had travelled to the West and wrote about their “Western experience” in the Chinese language for a home audience, who shared their vision of a troubled and yet hopeful China. Situated in the native circumstances, these narratives provide a dialogic space that transforms geographical regions into diverse cultural conceptions of selves and others.  Chen first discusses Chinese diaporic stories in the 1920s, such as Li Jieren’s (李劼人) “Sympathy (《同情》, 1923),” Jiang 
Guangci’s (蒋光慈, 《鸭绿江上》, 1926), and Zhang Wentian’s (张闻天) “Journey (《旅途》,1924).” She then compares their views of the Others with those expressed in Hu Ping (胡平) and Zhang Shengyou’s (张胜友) reportage writings (报告文学) in the 1980s, such as Exchanging Revolutionary Experience in the World 
(《世界大串联》, 1987), Zhou Li’s (周励) autobiographical fction A Chinese Woman in Manhattan (《曼哈顿的中国 人》,1992), and Hu Ping’s Immigrating to America (《移民美国》, 1997).  Chen explores the 
following questions: Before these writers’ sojourn abroad, what were the native circumstances that motivated their emigrant experience?  During their sojourn abroad, how did they define themselves as “Chinese” in order to construct their own identities in opposition to everything else they construed as “un-Chinese”? In addition to their Asian Pacific economic and cultural activities, what were the discursive powers at work that negated or compensated for their status in their immigrant countries? When we talk about Chinese trans-nationalism in the geopolitics of the twentieth century, to what extent can we recover the subject positions of Chinese writers who narrated their own diaspora experience in the Chinese language for a domestic readership in China?  While taking into consideration the importance of the semi-colonial experience in the beginning of twentieth century, this study reminds its readers that modern Chinese literary histories cannot be seen as pre-conditioned by a socalled predominant Western colonialization, but as formative sites where Chinese writers can and have been actively constructing their own stories, from their native perspectives and with a voice of their own. 
 
Occidentalsim has received positive reviews by scholarly journals. Choice believed that “Chen offers a new theoretical framework on cultural studies.” Kirkus Reviews regarded the books as "An ambitious, revisionist challenge to Edward Said's concept of Orientalism. . . . Chen's thesis is fundamentally sound, supportable, and intellectually challenging." The Comparatist regarded Occidentalsim as “An innovative 'deconstruction' or reversal of Said's view of Orientalism as the hegemonic construction of a silenced Other,” and “shows that Chinese Occidentalism is a pluralistic reading of the West” with “compelling and wide-ranging examples.”  “Lucidly argued, convincing, and elegantly written, Chen's study is a major contribution to East-West studies, comparative literature, and cultural hermeneutics." Research on African Literatures appreciated "Chen's sagacious analysis of the deliberate and productive misreading of Western cultural texts by the Chinese public” which “shows how the Western Other also engages in the invention of the West for internal political purpose. . . . Occidentalism has the virtue of providing a more polyphonic history of cultural relations as its author weaves into her study voices representing different social, political and gender groups.” World Literature Today depicted the book as “A stimulating contribution to the debate, not only because she offers an insider's perspective, but also because she is aware of the limitations of oppositional modes of thought.” Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese believed that "Through a superb account of select developments in post-Mao poetry and spoken drama, the book provides a model for a study of exchanges between cultures that does not rely on essential categories such as 'East' and 'West.' Chen suggests that this is an error to which even those enlightened by Said are prone as they dismantle Orientalist fantasies and lament foreign influences in China. Occidentalism makes clear the limitations of Said's book for one who works, so to speak, from the inside out." 
 
 
 


Philo Kalia 생태인문학 학회 - 기독교 원불교 생태학

(2) Facebook


Philo's post
Philo Kalia
11 h

  · 
이 학술대회에 매력을 느껴 남의 집 잔치이지만 30km를 달려 단대 죽전캠퍼스에 갔다.
정문 오른쪽에 위치한 글로컬산학협력관을 단대 캠퍼스 한 바퀴 빙 돌고서야 겨우 찾았다. 
방향치, 길치, 공간 감각능력 부족.
발표가 6개였지만 1, 2분과로 나눠서 발표하는 바람에 3개 밖에 듣지 못했다.


대개 학회에서는 동종 전공자들의 동종교배만이 이뤄지는데
이번에는 과학, 동양철학, 서양철학, 종교사상과 교육까지 다양한 전공자들이 참여했다. 
학문간 대화와 융합이 생태문제, 지구위기, 기후위기를 놓고 비로소 시작된 것이다. 
기후위기 문제를 어찌 한 분야에서 다 말할 수 있다거나 해법을 발견할 수 있으랴.

서성열 선생(농사상연구소)의 “기독교 생태 신학과 농(農)의 신학”이 
무척 신선하고 도전적이었다. “하나님은 농부이시다”는 선언을 신학적으로 사색하고 전개할 수 있는 발표였다.

고은아 선생(대전광역시환경교육센터)의 “생태전환교육의 필요성과 방향”에서는 
3년 전부터 초등과 중등교육과정이 생태전환교육으로 교과전체가 전환되고 있다는 것이다. 
문제는 늘 기성세대와 정치와 (대)기업에 있다.

*학회의 고질적인 문제:
발표시간과 토론시간이 늘 부족하다.
발표문의 밀도 있는 문제의식과 전개 및 해법 제시, 토론자의 그것에 대한 정성어린 비판이 부족하다.
토론문에 발표자의 논문 요약은 안 했으면 좋겠다. 
질의와 비판을 하면서 그 안에서 충분히 발표 내용을 언급할 수 있다.


Comments

2023/06/29

알라딘: 종교 간의 대화- 불교와 그리스도교의 만남 길희성,이찬수

알라딘: 종교 간의 대화


종교 간의 대화 - 불교와 그리스도교의 만남 
길희성,이찬수,전재성,민경석,윤영해,박태식,류제동,최원오,곽상훈,배은주,유충희,박명우,김진경 (지은이)현암사2009-07-10





























미리보기


책소개
불교와 그리스도교의 대화를 시도한 책으로, 불교와 그리스도교의 서로 다른 언어와 사유의 기저에는 같은 진리가 있으리라는 기대가 담겨있다. 이 책의 토대가 된 것은 '종교신학연구소'의 '종교신학연구 월례발표회'다. 종교가 다르고 교파가 달라도 서로 힘을 합쳐 배우려는 학자들이 지난 2003년부터 2006년까지 매월 한 차례 '종교신학연구소'에 모여 신학과 종교학의 여러 주제들을 함께 공부했다.

이 책은 월례발표회에서 머리를 맞대고 발표하고 토론한 내용 중 몇 편의 논문을 가려 엮은 책이다. 그리스도교와 불교의 접점을 찾으려는 이 책의 노력은 학문적인 부분에 초점을 맞추어 이루어졌다. 학자들의 깊이 있는 학문적 성찰을 통해 두 종교를 성찰해보고자 한 것이다.


목차


머리말

1 불교와 그리스도교의 만남
길희성/ 왜 불교인가?
윤영해/ 그리스도교와 불교의 自己否定의 의미
이찬수/ 불교와 그리스도교, 갈등과 만남의 역사
류제동/ 하느님과 일심(一心) : 월프레드 캔트웰 스미스의 세계신학적 신앙관과 대승기신론을 중심으로

2 불교의 이해
전재성/ 초기경전의 이해와 역사 속 부처 : 탈신화적 이해
곽상훈/ 초기불교의 자비사상

3 성서주석학
배은주/ 요셉이야기(창세기 37~50) 소묘 : 성서의 설화적 세계로의 접근
박태식/ 첫째가는 계명 : 마르 12,28~34 풀이
유충희/ 예언과 영언 : 1코린 14장 풀이

4 한국적 그리스도교의 제문제
최원오/ 개신교의 세례에 대한 한국 천주교회의 오해 : 한국 천주교회 세례관행에 대한 교부학적 연구
박명우/ 한국적 지역 기독교 신학의 구상 : 유영모 신학의 비평적 분석

5 현대신학의 제문제
민경석/ 현대신학에 대한 반성과 전망 : 예언신학과 지혜신학의 변증법을 위한 시론
민경석/ 제국주의 세계화 시대에 그리스도교 신학의 맥락과 과제
김진경/ 탈식민주의 여성의 눈으로 본 상호상황적 성서해석
접기


추천글

이 책을 추천한 다른 분들 :
조선일보
- 조선일보 Books 북Zine 2009년 7월 11일자 '북카페'
한겨레 신문
- 한겨레 신문 2009년 7월 25일 교양 새책



저자 및 역자소개
길희성 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

서울대학교 철학과를 졸업한 후 미국 예일대학교 신학부에서 석사학위를, 하버드대학교 대학원에서 박사학위(비교종교학)를 받았다. 서울대학교 철학과 교수, 서강대학교 종교학과 교수를 역임했으며 2011년부터 현재까지 서강대학교 종교학과 명예교수이자 대한민국학술원 회원이다. 그는 정년퇴직 이후 종교 경전과 사상가 그리고 성인을 배우고 명상할 수 있는 기관인 <심도학사>를 설립하였다. 주요 저서로 『종교 10강』, 『종교에서 영성으로』, 『아직도 교회 다니십니까』, 『인도 철학사』, 『일본의 정토사상』, 『지눌의 선禪 사상』, 『보살예수』,... 더보기

최근작 : <인문학의 길>,<포스트모던 사회와 열린 종교 이야기>,<신앙과 이성의 새로운 화해> … 총 48종 (모두보기)

이찬수 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

일본의 사상과 문화, 동아시아의 종교와 평화 연구자. 서강대학교 화학과를 거쳐 대학원 종교학과에서 일본의 철학자 니시타니 케이지와 독일의 신학자 칼 라너의 사상을 비교하는 논문으로 박사학위를 받았다. 강남대 교수, 서울대 통일평화연구원 HK연구교수, (일본)코세이 가쿠린 객원교수, (일본)중앙학술연구소 객원연구원, (일본)난잔대학 객원연구원, 성공회대 대우교수, 보훈교육연구원장 등을 지냈다.
『일본정신』, 『불교와 그리스도교 깊이에서 만나다: 교토학파와 그리스도교』, 『다르지만 조화한다』, 『평화와 평화들』, 『사회는 왜 아픈가』... 더보기

최근작 : <메이지의 그늘>,<보훈과 교육>,<보훈, 평화로의 길> … 총 61종 (모두보기)

전재성 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

서울대학교를 졸업하고, 동국대학교 인도철학과 박사 과정을 수료, 독일 본대학의 박사과정에서 인도학, 티베트학을 연구했다. 독일 본대학과 쾰른대 동아시아 박물관 강사, 동국대 강사, 중앙승가대 교수, 충남대 강사 등을 역임하고, 현재 빠알리성전협회의 한국대표를 맡고 있다. 《인도사회와 신불교》를 번역했으며, 저서에는 《거지성자》《빠알리어사전》 《금강경-번개처럼 자르는 지혜의 완성》《붓다의 가르침과 팔정도》 《오늘 부처님께 묻는다면》 《생활 속의 명상수행》 《법구경-담마파다》 《우다나-감흥어린시구》 《숫타니파타》 《천수다라니와 붓다의 ... 더보기

최근작 : <비나야삐따까>,<NEW 서울대 선정 인문고전 60선 45 : 법구경>,<시와 함께 - 붓다의 대화> … 총 70종 (모두보기)

민경석 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

미국 클레어몬트 대학원 동교철학. 신학교수. 미국 포드햄 대학교에서 철학 전공으로 박사학위를 받고 미국 밴더빌트(Vanderbilt) 대학교에서 신학 전공으로 박사학위를 받았다.


최근작 : <종교 간의 대화>,<한국교회 2000> … 총 2종 (모두보기)

윤영해 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

동국대 선학과를 졸업하고 같은 대학원 석사과정을 수료하였다.
서강대 종교학과를 졸업하고 같은 대학원 종교학을 전공하였다(석사·박사).
현재 동국대 경주캠퍼스 불교학과 교수이며 불교문화대학 학장, 불교문화대학원 원장, 불교사회문화연구원 원장을 맡고 있다.
논문으로 〈기독교와 불교의 自己否定의 의미〉 〈한국에서 불교와 기독교의 만남과 그 관계 변화〉 등이 있고, 역서로 《불교의 이해》,저서로 《불교사상의이해》(공저)《주자의 선불교 비판 연구》가 있다.

최근작 : <종교학, 불교학적 해명>,<천수경과 기도영험>,<종교 간의 대화> … 총 6종 (모두보기)

박태식 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

성공회 사제로서 현재 성공회대 교수로 있다. 또한 영평 회원으로 2014년 부산국제영화제 심사위원으로 활동한 바 있다. 1992년 에세이스트로 등단했고 저서로는 『영화는 세상의 암호』 등이 있다.

최근작 : <한국영화감독 1>,<신학의 식탁>,<유럽영화감독 1> … 총 28종 (모두보기)

류제동 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

비교학문적 시각에서 불교에 접근하는 연구자이다. 2004년 서강대학교 종교학과에서 박사학위를 받았다. 서강대학교, 성균관대학교, 가톨릭대학교, 금강대학교, 위덕대학교, 중앙대학교, 한신대학교, 그리고 신앙인아카데미 등에서 강의하였다. 한국과 일본에서 불교의 사회참여와 현대적 이해, 서구권에서 현대 불교의 재구성 등에 관심을 가지고 연구하고 있다. 『하느님과 일심: 윌프레드 캔트웰 스미스의 종교학과 대승기신론의 만남』, 『보리수 가지치기: 비판불교를 둘러싼 폭풍』, 그리고 Catastrophe and Philosophy(공저) 등의 ... 더보기

최근작 : <종교와 정의>,<재미있는 지구촌 종교 이야기>,<종교 간의 대화> … 총 11종 (모두보기)

최원오 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

광주가톨릭대학교와 대학원을 졸업하고, 로마 아우구스티누스 대학에서 교부학 박사학위를 받았다. 부산가톨릭대학교 교수로 일했으며, 현재 대구가톨릭대학교 교수다. 『교부들의 사회교리』(분도출판사 2020), 『교부들에게 배우는 삶의 지혜』(분도출판사 2017, 공저), 『종교 간의 대화』(현암사 2009, 공저), 『내가 사랑한 교부들』(분도출판사 2005, 공저)을 지었고, 포시디우스의 『아우구스티누스의 생애』(분도출판사 2008, 공역), 아우구스티누스의 『요한 서간 강해』(분도출판사 2011, 공역), 암브로시우스의 『성직자의 의무... 더보기

최근작 : <교부들의 사회교리>,<선행과 자선 / 인내의 유익 / 시기와 질투>,<종교 간의 대화> … 총 15종 (모두보기)

곽상훈 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

가톨릭대학교에서 철학 석사학위를 받고 동국대학교에서 철학 박사학위를 받았다. 가톨릭대학교 조교수를 지냈다.

최근작 : <종교 간의 대화>

배은주 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

툿찡 포교 베네딕도수녀회 대구수녀원 수녀이다. 서강대학교 종교학과 대학원을 졸업한 후, 로마 교황청립 성서대학(성서학 석사)과 교황청립 그레고리오 대학교(성서신학 박사)에서 수학했다. 부산가톨릭대학교 신학대학에서 교수를 역임하고, 현재는 대구 베네딕도 성경학교에서 성경을 강의하고 있다. 분도출판사에서 『네 복음서 대조』(공편)를 펴냈다.

최근작 : <일곱 봉인의 비밀>,<종교 간의 대화> … 총 2종 (모두보기)

유충희 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

1979년 연세대학교 신학과를 졸업하고 서강대학교 대학원 종교학과에서 석사학위를 받았다. 독일 상트 게오르겐 대학에서 수학한 후 부제품을 받고 귀국하여 원주교구에서 1991년 사제품을 받았다.
그 후 서강대학교 대학원 종교학과에서 박사학위를 취득하고 원주와 제천에서 사목했으며, 현재 원주교구 사회복지국장으로 있다. 지은 책에 「예수의 최후만찬과 초대교회의 성만찬」 · 「초대교회와 사도 바오로」 · 「로마서와 코린토서」가 있고, 여러 교회 기관 잡지에 <유럽의 미술관> · <이웃 종교를 압시다> · <이... 더보기

최근작 : <루카 복음>,<종교 간의 대화> … 총 2종 (모두보기)

박명우 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

경민대학 교양학부 교수. 영국 에든버러 대학교에서 비서구 기독교와 문화로 석.박사학위를 받았다. 인도네시아 자카르타(Jakarta) 신학대학 교수를 지냈다.

최근작 : <종교 간의 대화>

김진경 (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

미국 모라비아(Moravia) 대학교 대학원 조교수로 신약성서학을 가르쳤다. 미국 밴더빌트(Vanderbilt) 대학교에서 종교학 박사학위를 받았다.

최근작 : <종교 간의 대화>


출판사 제공 책소개

종교 간의 대화와 화합의 장을 위하여

한국은 불자와 그리스도인 수가 각기 1,400만, 거의 동수인 나라다. 종교사의 양대 산맥이라고도 할 수 있는 두 거대 종교가 이만한 규모로 비슷하게 번성하고 있는 나라는 세계에서 한국이 거의 유일하지만 두 교단은 도무지 화합하지 못하고 있는 것이 사실이다.
불교와 그리스도교는 각기 동서양을 대표하는 세계 양대 종교로 발전해 왔다. 또한 이제는 동서양이라는 지역에 한정되지 않고 세계적으로 자리매김하고 있는 종교다. 물론 세계적인 종교를 논할 때 이슬람을 비롯하여 10억 인구의 인도 종교인 힌두교 등을 배제할 수는 없겠지만 ‘세계성’을 고려해볼 때 특정 지역이나 문화권에 치우친 이슬람과 힌두교가 불교만한 비중을 차지한다고 보기에는 무리가 있다.
이러한 세계종교인 불교와 그리스도교는 얼핏 보면 전혀 다른 사유와 언어로 이루어진 것처럼 생각되지만 결국은 같은 진리를 토대로 세워진 종교가 아닐까. ??종교 간의 대화??에서는 이 같은 생각을 바탕으로 불교와 그리스도교의 대화를 시도했다. 불교와 그리스도교의 서로 다른 언어와 사유의 기저에는 같은 진리가 있으리라는 기대가 이 책에 담겨 있다.
이 책의 토대가 된 것은 ‘종교신학연구소’의 ‘종교신학연구 월례발표회’다. 종교가 다르고 교파가 달라도 서로 힘을 합쳐 배우려는 학자들이 지난 2003년부터 2006년까지 매월 한 차례 ‘종교신학연구소’에 모여 신학과 종교학의 여러 주제들을 함께 공부했다. 이 책은 그 월례발표회에서 머리를 맞대고 발표하고 토론한 내용 중 몇 편의 논문을 가려 엮은 책이다. 그리스도교와 불교의 접점을 찾으려는 이 책의 노력은 학문적인 부분에 초점을 맞추어 이루어졌다. 학문의 대화는 교황청의 종교 간 대화위원회에서 지난 1991년 제창한 종교 간의 대화 양상인 ‘만남의 대화’, ‘협동의 대화’, ‘학문의 대화’, ‘영성의 대화’ 중 한 가지 방법이다. 학자들의 깊이 있는 학문적 성찰을 통해 두 종교를 성찰해 보고자 한 것이다.

이 책의 주요 내용

1장 ‘불교와 그리스도교의 만남’에서는 불교와 그리스도교가 접촉하는 지점과 상통할 수 있는 내용을 다루는 한편, 어떤 측면에서 서로 다른 길을 가고 독특성을 뿜어내는지를 한국적 상황은 물론 세계적 지평에서 살펴보고 있다.
2장 ‘불교의 이해’에서는 특별히 초기경전과 초기 불교에 나타난 역사적 부처와 자비사상에 대하여 알아보고 한국인의 심성에 와 닿도록 풀어 해설했다.
3장 ‘성서주석학’에서는 구약성서의 ‘요셉이야기’를 설화적 본문으로 바라보고, 하느님이 인간 세계에 현존하시는가에 대하여 성서작가가 얼마나 정교한 짜임새로 서술하였는지를 알아보았다. 또한 신약성서의 네 복음서에 두루 중요하게 나오는 ‘첫째가는 계명’과 사도 바울로가 피력한 ‘예언과 영언’의 의미를 되짚어 알아본다.
4장 ‘한국적 그리스도교의 제문제’에서는 한국 천주교회가 개신교의 세례를 어떻게 받아들여야 하는지 고대 교부들의 시선과 입장에서 논증하여 교파 간 대화와 소통의 길을 열어놓고 있다. 또한 다석 유영모가 제창한 한국 고유의 신학적 세계상을 통해 한국 고유의 사상과 그리스도교의 창조적인 만남을 모색한다.
마지막으로 5장 ‘현대신학의 제문제’에서는 21세기에 들어서 제국주의적 세계화와 탈식민주의적 노선이 팽팽하게 공존하는 세계신학 판이 어떻게 각기 다양한 신학적 관점을 쏟아내어 토론하고 아우르며 현실 문제를 해석하는지 예언신학, 지혜신학, 세계화신학, 여성신학의 입장에서 펼쳐 보이고 있다. 접기

알라딘: 화엄철학: 쉽게 풀어 쓴 불교철학의 정수, 까르마 C.C.츠앙 (지은이),이찬수 (옮긴이) 1998

알라딘: 화엄철학


까르마 C.C.츠앙 (지은이),이찬수 (옮긴이)

경서원1998-03-25
===
해강스님 문안인사 올림니다.
작성자 사미사미 (61.��.129.199) 06-02-14


올해는 무척 많은 눈이 내렸읍니다.

 하얀 눈송이를 바라보면서 상념에 젖어봄니다. 스님의  화엄경강의는 흐르는 물과 같고 소복소복
쌓이는 함박눈 같았지요.
 처음 제에게는 어렵게 다가왔지만 박식한 강의는 궁금증을  하나하나씩 풀어 주었읍니다.
참으로 저에게는 불교가 가슴으로 느껴저왔읍니다.

 여러가지 화엄사상이 전하고자 했던 사상이 연기법이며 사사무애의 가르침이 생각나고
인연 화합되어 생겨난 결과물이 마음이며, 마음은 다스림의 대상이지 깨달음의 대상이 아니다...

 아직은 화암경에 대하여 그림자만 보는것 같음니다...

까르마 c.c 츠앙(경서원)의 화암철학을 읽고나니 여러가지로 느껴졌읍니다.
생각하는마음 .바라보는 시각....

 부처님의 법이 온우주에 가득찼고 나는 이디에 있는지 모르지만 어느한부분에 연계되어
있으리라 생각됨니다.

 해강스님 ?
추운 날씨에 건강하신지 문안드림니다.
인연이 되어 다시한번 스님에 강의를 듣고 싶군요.

  얼마전 화엄불교대학 학림원 졸업식이 (2월11일) 거행 되었는데.
스님이 계섰드라면 졸업식이 더욱더 빛나리라 생각되었고
학교측에 조금은 서운한 생각이 들었읍니다.
하지만 여러가지로 배려 해준 학교에 감사드리며 스님에 강의를 듣게해준 많은 인연에
고개숙여 합장합니다.

  두서없는 글 용서 바라며 이만 줄일까 합니다
  스님 항상 건강하시고 성불하십시요.

  전북 화엄 불교대학 학림원  학생 
                  윤점준 합장
===
[화엄철학/華嚴哲學], 불교철학의 진수, 화엄철학. 
하지만 이 또한 악용될 여지는 다분하다. 비판할 부분도 있고.
관쥬
2020. 6. 8.
https://m.blog.naver.com/songj489/221994052093

화엄철학, 아니 거의 대부분의 불교철학 종파는 말합니다.
'하나가 전체이고, 전체가 하나이다.'
각각의 존재자들은 세계 전체를 대표할만할 정도의 고귀한 가치를 지닙니다.
화엄철학의 꽃밭 비유를 보면 알 수 있죠.
작은 꽃들이 모여 전체를 이루고. 그 작은 꽃 하나는 정말 소중한 존재입니다.
--
나비효과에 대해서 아시나요?
베이징의 나비 한 마리의 날개짓 하나로 뉴욕에 폭풍우가 닥친다는 내용이죠.
나비의 날개짓은 미세하게나마 기류를 바꿉니다.
이 바뀐 기류는 다른 것을 바꾸고. 바뀐 것은 또 다른 것을 바꾸어, 결국 뉴욕에는 폭풍우가 인다는 것입니다.
인간사의 현상 하나를 보아도 마찬가지입니다.
'하나' 자체가 어디에서부터 발원한 것인지 고민해보면,
수많은 원인들이 모여 하나의 사건/하나의 존재자를 이루는 것을 알 수 있습니다.
--
불교 개념 중에 인드라망 경계문이라는 게 나옵니다.
인드라는 인도의 고대 신입니다. 인드라는 하늘을 관장합니다.
그런 인드라가 갖는 그물이 '인드라망'입니다. 이 그물은 되게 복잡한 4차원/5차원의 구조를 띱니다.
인드라망에는 총 천 개의 그물코가 있습니다. 그물코 하나하나마다 구슬들이 일일이 박혀있습니다.
이 구슬 하나를 들여다보면요, 999개가 다 비춰서 보입니다.
즉 하나의 존재자에 전체 우주가 보입니다.
근데 멀리서 보면 하나의 구슬만을 비춥니다.
즉 하나에 전체가 보이고 전체가 하나로 보이는 그물 구조를 가지는 것이죠.
인드라망과 같은 것이 이 세계의 존재자입니다. 즉, 일즉다인 것이죠.
우주 전체가 사소한 존재 하나에 집중합니다.
사소한 존재 하나가 우주 전체를 바꾸는 힘이 있습니다.
전체는 하나로 귀속됩니다. 모든 존재 각각은 그것대로 전체이구요.


이것이 일즉다 다즉일입니다. 모든 전체는 그 자체로 불성을 드러냅니다. 세계를 담고 있습니다.
여래성 연기가 곧 그것입니다.
본질에는 부처의 완전한 본성이 있고, 원인과 조건의 연기를 통해 이 세계를 드러냄으로써 모든 전체가 됩니다.
부분과 전체 관계에서 우주 전체는 하나로 집중됩니다.
법장이라는 불교 학자는 이를 육상원융이라고 일컫습니다.
그에 따르면, 세계가 존재하는 방식은 총 여섯 개의 형식으로 이루어져있습니다. 이것들은 다 서로 둥글게 융합되어 있습니다.
이가 총상과 별상입니다.
총상은 전체의 모습이고, 별상은 부분의 모습입니다. 이 둘은 서로 어우러집니다.
꽃밭과 꽃을 예로 들어보면, 꽃밭은 총상이구요 꽃 한 송이는 별상입니다.
집을 예로 들어보자면, 전체 집이 총상이구요 창문 대문 기둥 벽 같은 것이 별상입니다.
이는 각각의 사물들이지만, 시야를 뒤로 빼면 이는 한 채의 집입니다.
이게 총상과 별상/동상과 이상의 관계입니다.
각각의 존재자들은 동일한 목표가 있습니다.
꽃 한 송이 한 송이가 꽃밭 전체를 이룬다는 동일한 목표가 있습니다.
즉, 튤립 한 송이는 저마다의 특징이 있지만 저마다 다른 점이 있습니다.
한 존재자는 각자의 특수성을 가지면서도 하나의 목적을 가집니다.
지붕, 창문, 대문마다 각자의 역할이 있습니다. 그런 역할과 목적 전체가 합쳐지면 집이라는 목적을 이룹니다.
목적은 같지만 부분들이 제각각 다른 일을 합니다.
성상과 괴상의 관계로 볼 수도 있겠습니다.
전체의 조화와 부분들의 개성이 공존하는 것입니다.
전체를 보면 매우 조화롭지만 부분을 보면 개성이 있습니다.
집의 모든 부분들이 잘 어우러져서 조화를 이루어 집을 이루지만 부분을 보면 역할이 다릅니다.
모든 존재는 그 자체로 전체를 지향하고 개별을 이루고, 개성을 가지면서도 세상을 꺠지 않습니다.
이는 노르웨이의 네스라는 생태학자에게 영감을 주었습니다. 그래서 그는 심층 생태주의를 역설합니다. 이 반대는 얕은 생태주의입니다.
환경과 생태를 왜 보존해야하는가에 대한 이유입니다.
후손들에게 보다 넉넉한 자원, 살기 좋은 자연을 물려주기 위하여 환경을 보호한다는 것은
자연을 자연 자체로 대하는 게 아니라 인간에게 필요한 수단으로서만 보는 것입니다. 이는 얕은 생태주의입니다.
심층 생태주의는요, 지구 전체를 하나의 생명체로 봅니다. 즉 지구를 구성하는 각각의 존재자들이 매우 중요한 요소입니다. 그러므로 인간이 가지
는 특별한 지위는 없습니다.
모든 자연 대상물들, 환경, 벌레마저도 우주 자연을 구성하는 중요 요소이지요.
깊은 생태주의는 모든 존재자들 그 자체를 목적으로 대해야한다는 깊이 있는 관점의 전환입니다.
네스의 이 관점은 화엄철학과 긴밀하지요.
화엄철학에서는 이 세계의 존재자들 모두가 동등하고 고귀합니다. 이는 즉 우주 전체가 중요하며, 우주 전체만큼이나 각각의 개별자들도 소중하다
는 것입니다.
어떤 그 무엇도 우/열, 상/하, 미/추 구분을 떠나서 모든 존재를 평등하게 대하는 모습을 엿볼 수 있습니다.
불교는 우리가 알고 있는 우리의 관념들, 우리가 생각하고 믿고 있는 것들, 우리의 가치관들이 매우 잘못되었으며 이 때문에 나 자신도 고통받고 타
인도 괴롭힌다고 봅니다.



그러니까 실상을 보자고 하는 것입니다. 자본주의라는 인식의 잣대, 대학이라는 인식의 잣대들이 우리의 삶을 왜곡하고 있는 것입니다.
잣대는 본디 우리 삶을 질서 잡기 위해 있는 것이거늘, 굉장히 문제가 있는 것입니다.
이 잘못된 시각을 버려서 세상을 있는 그대로 보자고 말하는 것입니다. 이게 불교의 궁극적 메시지입니다.
세상의 잘못된 관점을 버리면 세상이 그 자체로 소중합니다.
모든 존재자들이 누구에 의해 가치 평가를 받아서, 낫다/천하다 하는 것은 잘못된 잣대로 들이대는 것입니다.
이가 존재 자체의 의미가 아닌 것이지요. 이게 화엄의 사상입니다.
이 사상이 심층생태주의에 모티브가 된 것입니다. 우리가 감히 어떤 기준으로 평가를 하겠습니까.
평가를 못 합니다. 평가할 수 없습니다.
남존여비로 여자를 평가해선 안 되겠습니다. 여자를 우수하다는 잣대로 보자는 말도 아닙니다.
존재자 자체를 보자, 이 말입니다. 존재자 자체를 긍정적으로 볼 떄 우리 삶이 온당해집니다. 이것이 화엄의 궁극적 진리입니다.
네스에 따르면, 파리 한 마리도 생존방식이 있습니다.
이는 지구 전체에서 보면 필수불가결한 것이지요.
하지만 인간은 거기에 '해충'이라는 이름을 붙입니다.
그런데 말입니다, 우주 전체 시각에서 보면 인간이 문제입니다.
네스를 설명하면요, 파시즘/전체주의적으로 해석이 가능합니다.
화엄철학의 현실에서는 각각의 개성들이 있고 이들은 개별적 목적들을 가지지만 이는 합쳐져서 전체를 위한 것이 됩니다.
헌데 개별자들이 전체를 위한 것이 되면 각각의 개별자들은 자기 삶이 아니라 목적성 아래에서 살아갑니다.
마치 아리스토텔레스의 목적 아래에서의 개념처럼 말입니다.
개별적 존재자들의 삶이 그 자체, 자기가 원하는 삶인지 의심하게 됩니다.
각각의 존재자들은 자기 삶을 제멋대로 살아갑니다.
근데 넓은 관점에서 거대한 목적을 씌운다고 가정했을 때.
집이라는/꽃밭이라는 테두리를 지운다면 이건 전체성으로 해석되기 쉬워집니다. 이게 화엄철학의 역사적 현실입니다.
법장은 의상대사의 후배였습니다. 그런데 법장 스님이 악녀로 손 꼽히는, 칙천무가의 엄혹한 독재 정치에 사상적 기반을 제공합니다.
법장은 칙천무가 옆의 금사자 조각을 보고 화엄철학에 대해 설명합니다.
칙천무가 당신이 우주라며 그를 위대하신 통치자로 칭송합니다.
즉 철학이 독재정치에 하수인 노릇을 하는 것입니다. 스즈키 다이셰츠 또한 마찬가지입니다.
스즈키는 다이쇼 천황에게 화엄철학을 설명하며 제국주의를 옹호합니다.
화엄은 모든 개별적 존재자들이 저마다 제 삶을 살아가고, 함부로 평가되지 못 하는 평등 사상이 매력적인 학문입니다.
현실에서는 그렇게 해석되지 않는 것입니다.
모든 사람들의 삶이 곧, 꽃밭이라는 하나의 목적에 귀속됩니다.
관념적으로만 이해한 것과 다른 것이지요.
그런 것은, 화엄의 현실에 대해 우울하게끔 만들기도 합니다. 


Neoplatonism - Wikipedia 신플라톤주의

Neoplatonism - Wikipedia


====
   

Neoplatonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoplatonism is a version of Platonic philosophy that emerged in the 3rd century AD against the background of Hellenistic philosophy and religion.[1][note 1][note 2] The term does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains is monism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One".[2]

Neoplatonism began with Ammonius Saccas and his student Plotinus (c. 204/5–271 AD) and stretched to the 6th century AD.[3] After Plotinus there were three distinct periods in the history of neoplatonism: the work of his student Porphyry (3rd to early 4th century); that of Iamblichus (3rd to 4th century); and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.[4]

Neoplatonism had an enduring influence on the subsequent history of Western philosophy and religion. In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic ideas were studied and discussed by ChristianJewish, and Muslim thinkers.[5] In the Islamic cultural sphere, neoplatonic texts were available in Arabic and Persian translations, and notable philosophers such as al-FarabiSolomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and Moses Maimonides incorporated neoplatonic elements into their own thinking.[6]

Christian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) had direct access to the works of ProclusSimplicius of Cilicia, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and he knew about other Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus and Porphyry, through second hand sources.[7] The German mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328) was also influenced by neoplatonism, propagating a contemplative way of life which points to the Godhead beyond the nameable God. Neoplatonism also had a strong influence on the perennial philosophy of the Italian Renaissance thinkers Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, and continues through 19th-century Universalism and modern-day spirituality and nondualism.

Origins of the term[edit]

Neoplatonism is a modern term.[note 1] The term neoplatonism has a double function as a historical category. On the one hand, it differentiates the philosophical doctrines of Plotinus and his successors from those of the historical Plato. On the other, the term makes an assumption about the novelty of Plotinus's interpretation of Plato. In the nearly six centuries from Plato's time to Plotinus', there had been an uninterrupted tradition of interpreting Plato which had begun with Aristotle and with the immediate successors of Plato's Academy and continued on through a period of Platonism which is now referred to as middle Platonism. The term neoplatonism implies that Plotinus' interpretation of Plato was so distinct from those of his predecessors that it should be thought to introduce a new period in the history of Platonism. Some contemporary scholars, however, have taken issue with this assumption and have doubted that neoplatonism constitutes a useful label. They claim that merely marginal differences separate Plotinus' teachings from those of his immediate predecessors. As a pupil of philosopher Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus used the knowledge of his teacher and predecessors in order to inspire the next generation.[10]

Whether neoplatonism is a meaningful or useful historical category is itself a central question concerning the history of the interpretation of Plato. For much of the history of Platonism, it was commonly accepted that the doctrines of the neoplatonists were essentially the same as those of Plato. The Renaissance Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino, for instance, thought that the neoplatonic interpretation of Plato was an authentic and accurate representation of Plato's philosophy.[11] Although it is unclear precisely when scholars began to disassociate the philosophy of the historical Plato from the philosophy of his neoplatonic interpreters, they had clearly begun to do so at least as early as the first decade of the nineteenth century. Contemporary scholars often identify the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher as an early thinker who took Plato's philosophy to be separate from that of his neoplatonic interpreters. However, others have argued that the differentiation of Plato from neoplatonism was the result of a protracted historical development that preceded Schleiermacher's scholarly work on Plato.[12]

Origins and history of classical Neoplatonism[edit]

Neoplatonism started with Plotinus in the 3rd century AD.[1][note 2] Three distinct phases in classical neoplatonism after Plotinus can be distinguished: the work of his student Porphyry; that of Iamblichus and his school in Syria; and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.[4]

Hellenism[edit]

Neoplatonism synthesized ideas from various philosophical and religious cultural spheres. The most important forerunners from Greek philosophy were the Middle Platonists, such as Plutarch, and the Neopythagoreans, especially Numenius of ApameaPhilo, a Hellenized Jew, translated Judaism into terms of Stoic, Platonic, and Neopythagorean elements, and held that God is "supra rational" and can be reached only through "ecstasy". Philo also held that the oracles of God supply the material of moral and religious knowledge. The earliest Christian philosophers, such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras of Athens, who attempted to connect Christianity with Platonism, and the Christian Gnostics of Alexandria, especially Valentinus and the followers of Basilides, also mirrored elements of Neoplatonism,[14] albeit without its self-consistency.

Ammonius Saccas[edit]

Ammonius Saccas (died c. 265 AD) was a teacher of Plotinus. Through Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus may have been influenced by Indian thought. The similarities between Neoplatonism and Indian philosophy, particularly Samkhya, have led several authors to suggest an Indian influence in its founding, particularly on Ammonius Saccas.[15][16][17]

Both Christians (see EusebiusJerome, and Origen) and pagans (see Porphyry and Plotinus) claimed him a teacher and founder of the neoplatonic system.[18] Porphyry stated in On the One School of Plato and Aristotle, that Ammonius' view was that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were in harmony. Eusebius and Jerome claimed him as a Christian until his death, whereas Porphyry claimed he had renounced Christianity and embraced pagan philosophy.

Plotinus[edit]

Presumed depiction of Plotinus and his disciples on a Roman sarcophagus in the Museo Gregoriano Profano, Vatican Museums, Rome

Plotinus (c. 205 – c. 270) is widely considered the father of Neoplatonism. Much of our biographical information about him comes from Porphyry's preface to his edition of Plotinus' Enneads. While he was himself influenced by the teachings of classical GreekPersian, and Indian philosophy and Egyptian theology,[19] his metaphysical writings later inspired numerous PaganJewishChristianGnostic, and Islamic metaphysicians and mystics over the centuries.

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, nor distinction; likewise, it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects and, therefore, is beyond the concepts which we can derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing" and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence) but "is prior to all existents".

Porphyry[edit]

Porphyry (c. 233 – c. 309) wrote widely on astrology, religion, philosophy, and musical theory. He produced a biography of his teacher, Plotinus. He is important in the history of mathematics because of his Life of Pythagoras and his commentary on Euclid's Elements, which Pappus used when he wrote his own commentary. Porphyry is also known as an opponent of Christianity and as a defender of paganism; of his Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians) in 15 books, only fragments remain. He famously said, "The gods have proclaimed Christ to have been most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect."

Iamblichus[edit]

Iamblichus (c. 245 – c. 325) influenced the direction taken by later neoplatonic philosophy. He is perhaps best known for his compendium on Pythagorean philosophy. In Iamblichus' system, the realm of divinities stretched from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul, in fact, descended into matter and became "embodied" as human beings. The world is thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who are all accessible to prayers and offerings. Iamblichus had salvation as his final goal (see henosis). The embodied soul was to return to divinity by performing certain rites, or theurgy, literally, 'divine-working'.

Academies[edit]

After Plotinus' (around 205–270) and his student Porphyry (around 232–309) Aristotle's (non-biological) works entered the curriculum of Platonic thought. Porphyry's introduction (Isagoge) to Aristotle's Categoria was important as an introduction to logic, and the study of Aristotle became an introduction to the study of Plato in the late Platonism of Athens and Alexandria. The commentaries of this group seek to harmonise Plato, Aristotle, and, often, the Stoics.[20] Some works of neoplatonism were attributed to Plato or Aristotle. De Mundo, for instance, is thought not to be the work of a 'pseudo-Aristotle' though this remains debatable.[21]

Hypatia (c. 360 – 415) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician who served as head of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, where she taught philosophy, mathematics and astronomy prior to her murder by a fanatical mob of Coptic Parabalani monks because she had been advising the Christian prefect of Egypt Orestes during his feud with Cyril, Alexandria's dynastic archbishop.[22] The extent of Cyril's personal involvement in her murder remains a matter of scholarly debate.

Proclus Lycaeus (February 8, 412 – April 17, 485) was a Greek neoplatonist philosopher, one of the last major Greek philosophers (see Damascius). He set forth one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully developed neoplatonic systems, providing also an allegorical way of reading the dialogues of Plato. The particular characteristic of Proclus' system is his insertion of a level of individual ones, called henads, between the One itself and the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. The henads are beyond being, like the One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (seirai or taxeis) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the traditional Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all sunny things. The henads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity and to draw up the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity.

Ideas[edit]

The Enneads of Plotinus are the primary and classical document of neoplatonism. As a form of mysticism, it contains theoretical and practical parts. The theoretical parts deal with the high origin of the human soul, showing how it has departed from its first estate. The practical parts show the way by which the soul may again return to the Eternal and Supreme.[14] The system can be divided between the invisible world and the phenomenal world, the former containing the transcendentabsolute One from which emanates an eternal, perfect, essence (nous, or intellect), which, in turn, produces the world-soul.

The One[edit]

For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is "the One", an utterly simple, ineffable, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source of the Universe[23] and the teleological end of all existing things. Although, properly speaking, there is no name appropriate for the first principle, the most adequate names are "the One" or "the Good". The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist or to be a being. Rather, the creative principle of all things is beyond being, a notion which is derived from Book VI of the Republic,[24] when, in the course of his famous analogy of the sun, Plato says that the Good is beyond being (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας) in power and dignity.[25] In Plotinus' model of reality, the One is the cause of the rest of reality, which takes the form of two subsequent "hypostases" or substances: Nous and Soul (psyché). Although neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus' teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil.

Emanations[edit]

From the One emanated the rest of the universe as a sequence of lesser beings.

Demiurge or nous[edit]

The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, the nous, which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things. It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, the nous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as derivative, it is entirely different. What Plotinus understands by the nous is the highest sphere accessible to the human mind,[14] while also being pure intellect itself. Nous is the most critical component of idealism, Neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism.[note 3] The demiurge (the nous) is the energy, or ergon (does the work), which manifests or organises the material world into perceivability.

World-soul[edit]

The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like the nous. Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, and it is permeated and illuminated by the former, but it is also in contact with the latter. The nous/spirit is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in the nous, but, at the same time, it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul, it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by the nous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite.[14]

Phenomenal world[edit]

The soul, as a moving essence, generates the corporeal or phenomenal world. This world ought to be so pervaded by the soul that its various parts should remain in perfect harmony. Plotinus is no dualist in the sense of certain sects, such as the Gnostics; in contrast, he admires the beauty and splendour of the world. So long as idea governs matter, or the soul governs the body, the world is fair and good. It is an image – though a shadowy image – of the upper world, and the degrees of better and worse in it are essential to the harmony of the whole. But, in the actual phenomenal world, unity and harmony are replaced by strife or discord; the result is a conflict, a becoming and vanishing, an illusive existence. And the reason for this state of things is that bodies rest on a substratum of matter. Matter is the indeterminate: that with no qualities. If destitute of form and idea, it is evil; as capable of form, it is neutral.[14] Evil here is understood as a parasite, having no-existence of its own (parahypostasis), an unavoidable outcome of the Universe, having an "other" necessity, as a harmonizing factor.[28]

Celestial hierarchy[edit]

Later neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings such as godsangelsdemons, and other beings as mediators between the One and humanity. The neoplatonist gods are omni-perfect beings and do not display the usual amoral behaviour associated with their representations in the myths.

  • The One: God, The Good. Transcendent and ineffable.
  • The Hypercosmic Gods: those that make Essence, Life, and Soul
  • The Demiurge: the Creator
  • The Cosmic Gods: those who make Being, Nature, and Matter—including the gods known to us from classical religion.

Evil[edit]

Neoplatonists did not believe in an independent existence of evil. They compared it to darkness, which does not exist in itself but only as the absence of light. So, too, evil is simply the absence of good. Things are good insofar as they exist; they are evil only insofar as they are imperfect, lacking some good which they should have.

Return to the One[edit]

Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. Perfection and happiness—seen as synonymous—could be achieved through philosophical contemplation.

All people return to the One, from which they emanated.[29][30][31]

The neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, and immortality of the soul.[32][33] The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul. It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle" (okhêma),[34] accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death.[35] After bodily death, the soul takes up a level in the afterlife corresponding with the level at which it lived during its earthly life.[36][37] The neoplatonists believed in the principle of reincarnation. Although the most pure and holy souls would dwell in the highest regions, the impure soul would undergo a purification,[33] before descending again,[38] to be reincarnated into a new body, perhaps into animal form.[39] Plotinus believed that a soul may be reincarnated into another human or even a different sort of animal. However, Porphyry maintained, instead, that human souls were only reincarnated into other humans.[40] A soul which has returned to the One achieves union with the cosmic universal soul[41] and does not descend again; at least, not in this world period.[38]

Influence[edit]

Early Christianity[edit]

Augustine[edit]

Certain central tenets of neoplatonism served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo on his journey from dualistic Manichaeism to Christianity.[42] As a Manichaen, Augustine had held that evil has substantial being and that God is made of matter; when he became a neoplatonist, he changed his views on these things. As a neoplatonist, and later a Christian, Augustine believed that evil is a privation of good[43] and that God is not material.[44] When writing his treatise 'On True Religion' several years after his 387 baptism, Augustine's Christianity was still tempered by neoplatonism.

The term logos was interpreted variously in neoplatonism. Plotinus refers to Thales[45] in interpreting logos as the principle of meditation, the interrelationship between the hypostases[46] (Soul, Spirit (nous) and the 'One'). St. John introduces a relation between Logos and the Son, Christ,[47] whereas Paul calls it 'Son', 'Image', and 'Form'.[47][48][49] Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[47]

For Augustine, the Logos "took on flesh" in Christ, in whom the Logos was present as in no other man.[50][51][52] He strongly influenced early medieval Christian philosophy.[53] Perhaps the key subject in this was Logos.

Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius[edit]

Some early Christians, influenced by neoplatonism, identified the neoplatonic One, or God, with Yahweh. The most influential of these would be Origen, the pupil of Ammonius Saccas; and the sixth-century author known as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, whose works were translated by John Scotus in the ninth century for the West. Both authors had a lasting influence on Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity, and the development of contemplative and mystical practices and theology.

Gnosticism[edit]

Neoplatonism also had links with Gnosticism, which Plotinus rebuked in his ninth tractate of the second Enneads: "Against Those That Affirm The Creator of The Cosmos and The Cosmos Itself to Be Evil" (generally known as "Against The Gnostics").

Because their belief was grounded in Platonic thought, the neoplatonists rejected Gnosticism's vilification of Plato's demiurge, the creator of the material world or cosmos discussed in the Timaeus. Neoplatonism has been referred to as orthodox Platonic philosophy by scholars like John D. Turner; this reference may be due, in part, to Plotinus' attempt to refute certain interpretations of Platonic philosophy, through his Enneads. Plotinus believed the followers of Gnosticism had corrupted the original teachings of Plato and often argued against likes of Valentinus who, according to Plotinus, had given rise to doctrines of dogmatic theology with ideas such as that the Spirit of Christ was brought forth by a conscious god after the fall from Pleroma. According to Plotinus, The One is not a conscious god with intent, nor a godhead, nor a conditioned existing entity of any kind, rather a requisite principle of totality which is also the source of ultimate wisdom.[54]

Byzantine education[edit]

After the Platonic Academy was destroyed in the first century BC, philosophers continued to teach Platonism, but it was not until the early 5th century (c. 410) that a revived academy (which had no connection with the original Academy) was established in Athens by some leading neoplatonists.[55] It persisted until 529 AD when it was finally closed by Justinian I because of active paganism of its professors. Other schools continued in ConstantinopleAntioch and Alexandria which were the centers of Justinian's empire.[56][57]

After the closure of the neoplatonic academy, neoplatonic and/or secular philosophical studies continued in publicly funded schools in Alexandria. In the early seventh century, the neoplatonist Stephanus of Alexandria brought this Alexandrian tradition to Constantinople, where it would remain influential, albeit as a form of secular education.[57] The university maintained an active philosophical tradition of Platonism and Aristotelianism, with the former being the longest unbroken Platonic school, running for close to two millennia until the fifteenth century[57]

Michael Psellos (1018–1078), a Byzantine monk, writer, philosopher, politician and historian, wrote many philosophical treatises, such as De omnifaria doctrina. He wrote most of his philosophy during his time as a court politician at Constantinople in the 1030s and 1040s.

Gemistos Plethon (c. 1355 – 1452; Greek: Πλήθων Γεμιστός) remained the preeminent scholar of neoplatonic philosophy in the late Byzantine Empire. He introduced his understanding and insight into the works of neoplatonism during the failed attempt to reconcile the East–West Schism at the Council of Florence. At Florence, Plethon met Cosimo de' Medici and influenced the latter's decision to found a new Platonic Academy there. Cosimo subsequently appointed as head Marsilio Ficino, who proceeded to translate all Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other neoplatonist works into Latin.

Islamic neoplatonism[edit]

The major reason for the prominence of neoplatonic influences in the historical Muslim world was availability of neoplatonic texts: Arabic translations and paraphrases of neoplatonic works were readily available to Islamic scholars greatly due to the availability of the Greek copies, in part, because Muslims conquered some of the more important centres of the Byzantine Christian civilization in Egypt and Syria.[citation needed]

Various Persian and Arabic scholars, including Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Ibn Arabial-Kindial-Farabi, and al-Himsi, adapted neoplatonism to conform to the monotheistic constraints of Islam.[58] The translations of the works which extrapolate the tenets of God in neoplatonism present no major modification from their original Greek sources, showing the doctrinal shift towards monotheism.[59] Islamic neoplatonism adapted the concepts of the One and the First Principle to Islamic theology, attributing the First Principle to God.[60] God is a transcendent being, omnipresent and inalterable to the effects of creation.[59] Islamic philosophers used the framework of Islamic mysticism in their interpretation of Neoplatonic writings and concepts.[note 4]

Jewish thought[edit]

In the Middle Ages, neoplatonist ideas influenced Jewish thinkers, such as the Kabbalist Isaac the Blind, and the Jewish neoplatonic philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), who modified it in the light of their own monotheism.

Western mysticism[edit]

The works of Pseudo-Dionysius were instrumental in the flowering of western medieval mysticism, most notably the German mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328).

Western Renaissance[edit]

Neoplatonism ostensibly survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and was reintroduced to the West by Pletho (c. 1355 – 1452/1454), an avowed pagan and opponent of the Byzantine Church, inasmuch as the latter, under Western scholastic influence, relied heavily upon Aristotelian methodology. Pletho's Platonic revival, following the Council of Florence (1438–1439), largely accounts for the renewed interest in Platonic philosophy which accompanied the Renaissance.

"Of all the students of Greek in Renaissance Italy, the best-known are the neoplatonists who studied in and around Florence" (Hole). Neoplatonism was not just a revival of Plato's ideas, it is all based on Plotinus' created synthesis, which incorporated the works and teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and other Greek philosophers.

The Renaissance in Italy was the revival of classic antiquity, and this started at the fall of the Byzantine empire, who were considered the "librarians of the world", because of their great collection of classical manuscripts and the number of humanist scholars that resided in Constantinople (Hole).

Neoplatonism in the Renaissance combined the ideas of Christianity and a new awareness of the writings of Plato.

Marsilio Ficino (1433–99) was "chiefly responsible for packaging and presenting Plato to the Renaissance" (Hole). In 1462, Cosimo I de' Medici, patron of arts, who had an interest in humanism and Platonism, provided Ficino with all 36 of Plato's dialogues in Greek for him to translate. Between 1462 and 1469, Ficino translated these works into Latin, making them widely accessible, as only a minority of people could read Greek. And, between 1484 and 1492, he translated the works of Plotinus, making them available for the first time to the West.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) was another neoplatonist during the Italian Renaissance. He could speak and write Latin and Greek, and had knowledge on Hebrew and Arabic. The pope banned his works because they were viewed as heretical – unlike Ficino, who managed to stay on the right side of the church.

The efforts of Ficino and Pico to introduce neoplatonic and Hermetic doctrines into the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has recently been evaluated in terms of an attempted "Hermetic Reformation".[62]

Cambridge Platonists (17th century)[edit]

In the seventeenth century in England, neoplatonism was fundamental to the school of the Cambridge Platonists, whose luminaries included Henry MoreRalph CudworthBenjamin Whichcote and John Smith, all graduates of the University of CambridgeColeridge claimed that they were not really Platonists, but "more truly Plotinists": "divine Plotinus", as More called him.

Later, Thomas Taylor (not a Cambridge Platonist) was the first to translate Plotinus' works into English.[63][64]

Modern neoplatonism[edit]

Notable modern neoplatonists include Thomas Taylor, "the English Platonist", who wrote extensively on Platonism and translated almost the entire Platonic and Plotinian corpora into English, and the Belgian writer Suzanne Lilar.

The science fiction writer Philip K. Dick identified as a neoplatonist and explored related mystical experiences and religious concepts in his theoretical work, compiled in The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick.[65]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b The term first appeared in 1827.[8] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The term 'neoplatonism' is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing 'periods' in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate that Plotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition."[9]
  2. Jump up to:a b Pauline Remes: "'Neoplatonism' refers to a school of thought that began in approximately 245 CE, when a man called Plotinus moved [to] the capital of the Roman Empire [and] began teaching his interpretation of Plato's philosophy. Out of the association of people in Rome [...] emerged a school of philosophy that displays enough originality to be considered a new phase of Platonism".[13]
  3. ^ Schopenhauer wrote of this neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophyidealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)."[26]

    Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul."[27] It is worth noting, however, that, like Plato, but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.
  4. ^ Morewedge: "The greatest cluster of neoplatonic themes is found in religious mystical writings, which in fact transform purely orthodox doctrines such as creation into doctrines such as emanationism, which allow for a better framework for the expression of neoplatonic themes and the emergence of the mystical themes of the ascent and mystical union."[61]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b Moore, Edward (n.d.). "Neoplatonism"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
  2. ^ Halfwassen, Jens (2014). "The Metaphysics of the One". In Remes, Pauliina; Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism. Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy. Abingdon, Oxfordshire and New YorkRoutledge. pp. 182–199. ISBN 9781138573963.
  3. ^ Siorvanes, Lucas (2018). "Plotinus and Neoplatonism: The Creation of a New Synthesis". In Keyser, Paul T.; Scarborough, John (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical WorldNew YorkOxford University Press. pp. 847–868. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.78ISBN 9780199734146LCCN 2017049555.
  4. Jump up to:a b Wear, Sarah Klitenic (16 October 2018) [26 August 2013]. "Neoplatonism"oxfordbibliographies.comOxfordOxford University Pressdoi:10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0201ISBN 978-0-19-538966-1Archived from the original on 3 May 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
  5. ^ Armstrong, Karen (1993). A History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0345384560.
  6. ^ Kreisel, Howard (1997). "Moses Maimonides". In Frank, Daniel H. Frank; Leaman, Oliver (eds.). History of Jewish Philosophy. Routledge history of world philosophies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 245–280. ISBN 978-0-415-08064-4.
  7. ^ Wayne Hankey, "Aquinas, Plato, and Neo-Platonism"
  8. ^ etymonline.com, Neoplatonism
  9. ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Plotinus
  10. ^ Wildberg, Christian (2021), "Neoplatonism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-11-08
  11. ^ Allen, Michael J.B. (Summer 1977). "Ficino's Lecture on the Good?". Renaissance Quarterly30 (2): 160–171. doi:10.2307/2860654JSTOR 2860654S2CID 163651079.
  12. ^ Tigerstedt, E. N. The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato. 1974
  13. ^ Pauline Remes (2008), Neoplatonism. Acumen publishing, page 1.
  14. Jump up to:a b c d e  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainAdolf Harnack; John Malcolm Mitchell (1911). "Neoplatonism". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 372–378.
  15. ^ J. Bussanich. The roots of Platonism and Vedanta. International Journal of Hindu Studies. January 2005, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1-2
  16. ^ Harris, R. Baine (ed.), Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, Norfolk Va., 1982: The International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
  17. ^ J.F. Staal, Advaita and Neoplatonism. A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy. University of Madras, Madras 1961
  18. ^ "Neoplatonism"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2021.
  19. ^ Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books, Ch. 3 (Armstrong's Loeb translation).

    "he became eager to make acquaintance with the Persian philosophical discipline and that prevailing among the Indians"

  20. ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Frans de Haas
  21. ^ De Mundo, Loeb Classical Library, Introductory Note, D. J. Furley
  22. ^ Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) by Maria Dzielska (author), F. Lyra (translator), Harvard University Press; reprint edition (October 1, 1996), ISBN 978-0674437760, pp. 38–39.
  23. ^ Brenk, Frederick (January 2016). "Pagan Monotheism and Pagan Cult""Theism" and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient ReligionsSCS/AIA Annual Meeting. Vol. 75. PhiladelphiaSociety for Classical Studies (University of Pennsylvania). Archived from the original on 6 May 2017. Retrieved 14 October 2020Historical authors generally refer to "the divine" (to theion) or "the supernatural" (to daimonion) rather than simply "God." [...] The Stoics, believed in a God identifiable with the logos or hegemonikon (reason or leading principle) of the universe and downgraded the traditional gods, who even disappear during the conflagration (ekpyrosis). Yet, the Stoics apparently did not practice a cult to this God. Middle and Later Platonists, who spoke of a supreme God, in philosophical discourse, generally speak of this God, not the gods, as responsible for the creation and providence of the universe. They, too, however, do not seem to have directly practiced a religious cult to their God. {{cite book}}External link in |series= (help)
  24. ^ Dodds, E.R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'". The Classical Quarterly, Jul–Oct 1928, vol. 22, p. 136
  25. ^ Plato, Republic 509b
  26. ^ Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 7)
  27. ^ Ludwig Noiré, Historical Introduction to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
  28. ^ Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (1992), Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, SUNY Press, pp. 42–45
  29. ^ D. G. Leahy, Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact, pages 5–6. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  30. ^ Enneads VI 9.6
  31. ^ Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (1992), SUNY Press, page 173.
  32. ^ Plotinus, iv. 7, "On the immortality of the Soul."
  33. Jump up to:a b Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Brown, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar, 1999, Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, page 40. Harvard University Press.
  34. ^ See Plato's Timaeus, 41d, 44e, 69c, for the origin of this idea.
  35. ^ Paul S. MacDonald, 2003, History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations About Soul, Mind and Spirit from Homer to Hume, page 122. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  36. ^ Plotinus, iii.4.2
  37. ^ Andrew Smith, 1974, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, page 43. Springer.
  38. Jump up to:a b Andrew Smith, 1974, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, page 58. Springer.
  39. ^ "Whether human souls could be reborn into animals seems to have become quite a problematical topic to the later neoplatonists." – Andrew Smith, (1987), Porphyrian Studies since 1913, ANRW II 36, 2.
  40. ^ Remes, Pauliina, Neoplatonism (University of California Press, 2008), p. 119.
  41. ^ James A. Arieti, Philosophy in the Ancient World: An Introduction, page 336. Rowman & Littlefield
  42. ^ Augustine, Confessions Book 7
  43. ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.12.18
  44. ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.1.1-2
  45. ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Carlos Steel
  46. ^ The journal of neoplatonic studies, Volumes 7–8, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University, 1999, P 16
  47. Jump up to:a b c Theological treatises on the Trinity, By Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, P25
  48. ^ Col. 1:15
  49. ^ Phil. 2:5-7
  50. ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.9.13-14
  51. ^ De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary, By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction
  52. ^ 1 John 1:14
  53. ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Douwe Runia
  54. ^ "PLOTINUS, Ennead, Volume I: Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus. Ennead I"www.loebclassics.com.
  55. ^ Alan Cameron, "The last days of the Academy at Athens," in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society vol 195 (n.s. 15), 1969, pp 7–29.
  56. ^ Lindberg, David C. "The Beginnings of Western Science", page 70
  57. Jump up to:a b c Encyclopædia Britannica, Higher Education in the Byzantine Empire, 2008, O.Ed.
  58. ^ Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. p. 443ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
  59. Jump up to:a b Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. pp. 420–437. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
  60. ^ Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. p. 431ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
  61. ^ Morewedge, Parviz, ed. (1992). Neoplatonism and Islamic thought. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-7914-1335-7.
  62. ^ Heiser, James D., Prisci Theologi and the Hermetic Reformation in the Fifteenth Century, Repristination Press: Texas, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4610-9382-4
  63. ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – entry for Plotinus
  64. ^ Notopoulos, James A. (1936). "Shelley and Thomas Taylor". Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America51 (2): 502–517. doi:10.2307/458067JSTOR 458067S2CID 163842278.
  65. ^ Dick, Philip K. (2011). Jackson, Pamela; Lethem, Jonathan (eds.). The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0-547-54927-9.

Further reading[edit]

  • Addey, Crystal. 2014. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Farnham; Burlington : Ashgate.
  • Blumenthal, Henry J., and E. G. Clark, eds. 1993. The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Liverpool on 23–26 September 1990. Bristol, UK: Bristol Classical Press.
  • Catana, Leo 2013. "The Origin of the Division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism." Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 46: 2: 166–200.
  • Chiaradonna, Riccardo and Franco Trabattoni eds. 2009. Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop, Il Ciocco, Castelvecchio Pascoli, 22–24 June 2006. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
  • Chlup, Radek. 2012. Proclus: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Dillon, John M. and Lloyd P. Gerson eds. 2004. Neoplatonic Philosophy. Introductory Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
  • Gersh, Stephen. 2012. "The First Principles of Latin Neoplatonism: Augustine, Macrobius, Boethius." Vivarium 50.2: 113–138.
  • Gerson, Lloyd P. ed. 1996. The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gertz, Sebastian R. P. 2011. Death and Immortality in Late Neoplatonism: Studies on the Ancient Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo. Leiden: Brill.
  • Hadot, Ilsetraut. 2015. "Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato." Translated by Michael Chase. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  • O’Meara, Dominic J. 1993. Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  • Rangos, Spyridon. 2000. "Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion." Kernos 13: 47–84.
  • Remes, P. 2008. Neoplatonism. Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.
  • Remes, Pauliina and Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla eds. 2014. The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, New York: Routledge.
  • Smith, Andrew. 1974. Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Whittaker, Thomas. 1901. The Neo-Platonists: A Study in the History of Hellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

External links[edit]




====


===

신플라톤주의

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

신플라톤주의(Neoplatonism)는 3세기 이후, 플로티노스의 《엔네아데스》를 기초로 전개해 오는 사상 체계로서 플라톤·아리스토텔레스·스토아 학파 등 고대 여러 학파의 사상을 종합화하기 위해 성립한 것이라 볼 수 있다. 기본적으로는 이데아계-현상계(現象界)라고 하는 플라톤적 양분론을 계승하고 있으며, 특히 전자를 세분화하여 전 존재를 계층적으로 파악하려고 하는 것이 특색이다. 그러나, 이데아계와 현상계가 독립적으로 나눠져있다는 이원론적 세계관은 많이 희석된 상태로 존재하며, 《엔네아데스》의 규정성에 따라 일자(一者)에 의한 일원론적 세계관을 강조한다는 점에서 이전의 플라톤주의와 구분된다고 할 수 있다.

신플라톤주의의 학파로서의 존재는 529년 유스티니아누스 대제에 의한 이교도(異敎徒)의 학원폐쇄령과 함께 막을 내리지만, 사상 자체는 중세·근세의 철학에 커다란 영향을 미치게 된다. 르네상스시대에 있어 플라톤주의 부흥이라 일컬어지는 것과 근세 말기 과학적 방법론 도입에 관한 실제 내용은 신플라톤주의 색채를 진하게 갖는 것이다.

신플라톤주의는 중동 및 소아시아 지역에 걸쳐 존재했던 고대 그리스 철학을 일원론적 통일성에 기반하여 해석했다. 마음·정신·물질을 이해하는 측면에서 신플라톤주의 사상가들은 물질과 정신이 일자(一者) 파생의 만유이자, 그 구성물이라는 논리를 전개한 것으로 유명하다.

어떠한 사상이 신플라톤주의에 기반하였는지 평가하기 위해서는 해당 사상이 일원론·이원론·다원론 중 어느 입장을 옹호하느냐, 그리고 현상을 해석하는 단 하나의 무한적·우월적 개념을 사용하느냐, 사용하지 않느냐로 파악해야 할 것이다. 또한, 신플라톤주의 사상은 기독교 신학 이론에 커다란 영향을 주었으나, 대부분의 초기 신플라톤주의자들은 신에 대한 능동주의적 해석 및 인격신 개념을 철저히 부정하였으며, 기본적으로 범신론 사상을 갖고 있었다. 그러나, 후기 신플라톤주의 이후부터는 스토아학파적 사고관이 점점 배제되고 신에 대한 능동주의적 해석이 증가해감에 따라 그리스 신화의 인격신을 수호하는 전형적인 밀교적 철학으로 나아가게 되었다.

역사[편집]

학파의 역사적 발전과정을 살펴 보면, 학조(學祖) 플로티노스에서 제2대 학두 포르피리오스를 거쳐 이암블리코스(4세기 중엽)까지는 로마에 그 중심을 두고 있었으나, 그 후에 아테네와 알렉산드리아 등지의 동방세계로 중심이 옮겨졌다. 특히 전자의 경우, 그 곳에 존속하던 플라톤의 사상을 계승하는 아카데미아가 그대로 신플라톤학파의 학원(學園)화가 되었다. 아테네를 중심으로 하는 그룹의 학풍은 프로클로스(410-485, <신학원리>나 플라톤의 주해서를 다수 저술했다), 시리아누스다마스키오스심플리키오스로 계승되어 갔다. 알렉산드리아를 중심으로 하는 그룹은 여성 철학자들이었으며 그리스도교도에 의해 학살된 히파티아시네시오스등에 의해 4-5세기에 걸쳐서 활발한 활동을 벌였다.

다른 한편, 서방 세계에서도 신플라톤주의의 사상적 조류가 완전히 사라진 것은 아니고 마크로비우스(400년경의 사람. 신플라톤주의의 관점에서 키케로의 <공화정에 관하여>에 수록되어 있는 <스키피오의 꿈>을 해석하였다), 마르티아누스 카펠라칼키디우스(플라톤의 <티마이오스>를 라틴어로 번역, 주해를 거쳐 등장하였다) 등의 인물들이 4-5세기에 걸쳐 등장하여 그 사상적 흐름을 이어갔다. 다만 그들의 움직임이 동방의 경우와 달리 구조화된 학파를 형성한 것은 아니었으나 서방 세계에서 기독교와 점차 결합되어 갔다. 이에 대해 동방의 경우 쇠퇴 일로에 있던 이교(異敎)에 대해 이론적 지주를 주려는 경향이 엿보였으며, 이교의 제신(諸神)이나 신화를 플로티노스의 사상 체계 속에 엮어 넣어 재해석하려는 의도를 보이며 신비주의적 경향을 심화시켜 나갔다.

사상[편집]

플로티노스를 예로 들면 신플라톤주의는 대체로 다음과 같다. 우주에 존재하는 세계를 이데아계와 현상계로 2분(二分)한다. 그리고 이데아계는 '1자(一者)'(토·헨), '누스'(지성 내지 정신), '프시케'(영혼)의 3원리(三原理)로 설정된다. 이 '1자'에 관해서는 '선(善)한 것' '단순한 것' '자족적(自足的)인 것' 등 갖가지 표현이 사용되고 있으나 그것은 명확한 규정이 불가능한 것이며 단지 "그 무엇이 아닌가"라고 하는 부정적인 형태로밖에 표현할 수 없는 온갖 존재의 궁극적(究極的) 원리라고 되어 있다. 이같은 '1자'의 발상은 일괄적으로 규정하기 어려운 다양한 형태의 현실계의 이면에는 파편적이며 불규칙적으로 보이는 현상들을 합리적인 이성에 의해 보편적인 법칙을 이끌어내는 '1'('多'에 대한 '1')이 없어서는 안된다는 전제에서 나온 것이다.

이러한 3원리는 각각 독립된 실체가 아니라 '1자'로부터 유출(流出)되어(에마나티오) 생겨난 것으로서 그 움직임이 연속적이고 복합적인 형태로 포착되고 있다('一者'→'누스'→'프시케'). 즉, 불(火)은 열(熱)을, 얼음(氷)은 냉(冷)을 발산하고, 인간이 아이를 낳는 것과 같이 물건(物)은 성숙하고 충실해지면 자기와 동형(同形)의 물건을 산출하려고 하는데 이와 마찬가지로 완전히 충실해진 '일자(一者)'로부터 '누스', 다시 '누스'에서 '프시케'가 산출된다고 하는 것이다. 그리고 '프시케'에는 '이데아계'(英智界)와 그 그림자인 '현상계'를 연결하고 양자를 매개하는 기능이 있다. 또 이와 같은 '일자'로 부터의 산출·유출과 동시에 우주만물이 일자로의 환귀(還歸) 과정이 고려되고 있는 것이다.

그의 이러한 체계는 플라톤적인 '이데아계(英智界)'에 아리스토텔레스적인 운동·생성(生成)의 견해와 스토아적인 통일된 하나의 생명체·유기체로서의 우주를 보려고 하는 관점 등을 도입하여, 그렇게 함으로써 플라톤적 2원론(二元論)이 갖는 모순(상호간에 따로 존재하는 '이데아계'와 '현상계'를 어떻게 결합하여 관련을 맺게 할 것인가)의 한 가지 해결책으로서 의미를 갖는 것이라 생각되었다. 또 '1자' '누스' '프시케'의 3원리는 인간의 의식 내 사고(思考)의 반영(反映) 내지 산물로 생각되고 있다. 즉 현상계의 다양성이 의식 내에 있어서 논리적으로 정리되어 가는 단계를 3원리는 표시하고 있는 것이다. 이런 의미에서 3원리는 초월적인 동시에 내재적(內在的)이라고 할 수 있다. 그는 결국 이와 같은 체계를 구상함으로써 초월적 절대자와 유한적 존재인 인간의 신비적 합일을 의도하였던 것이다. 그러나 그 후 3원리는 초월적인 실체로서 생각하게 되어 절대자('토·헨', 그 밖에 갖가지 명칭으로 불린다)를 정점으로 하는 존재의 계층단계를 표시하는 것으로 되었다.

차이[편집]

그리스도교[편집]

신인동형적 논리와, 신에 의한 능동적 창조 원리를 강조하는 기독교는 세상만물이 신에 의한 능동적 창조 과정에 따라 태어났으며, 제일 근원적으로 보이는 원리도 신에 귀속시킨다. 반면 신플라톤주의는 제일 근원적으로 보이는 원리가 바로 신이며, 세상만물의 움직임과 구성은 그것 자체가 가진 자기원인적 힘의 발현이라고 본다. 따라서 기독교는 근본적이라 여겨지는 원리 위에 신에 의한 능동적 창조 과정을 설명하기 위해 지적 설계라는 함정에 빠질 수 있는 반면 신플라톤주의는 자연법칙 및 그것을 관통하는 절대계의 논리 구조는 그것 자체로 자기원인적이라고 하기에 지적 설계의 함정에 빠지지 않으며, 지적 설계를 주장하지 않는다.[1]

또한 자유의지와 인간성에 관한 관점도 역시 다르다. 기독교의 원죄론은 인간을 본래 악한 존재로 규정하고 있으며, 동시에 인간은 신에게 자유의지를 선물받았기에 어떠한 제약도 없이 스스로에게 책임성을 부여하는 자유의지를 누릴 수 있다고 본다. 반면 신플라톤주의 사상은 하강성(prohodos)의 산물인 질료적 존재가 인간이며, 상승성(epistrophe)을 이루지 못 하는 것이 악(惡)일 뿐, 인간 자체가 악한 것이 아니며 그것은 어떻게 행동하느냐에 따라 달렸다고 보았다. 동시에 신플라톤주의자들은 자유의지는 상승성의 과정에서만 제한적으로 나타나는 것이라고 하였다.[2]

스토아주의[편집]

신플라톤주의는 본래 스토아주의적 사고에 강한 영향을 받은 만큼 스토아주의와 상당한 유사성을 보이고 있다. 특히, 이성(理性)에 대한 체계적 관점과 일원론적 사고 및 최고 원리 인식에 관한 실천지(phronesis)를 중시한다는 점에서 스토아주의와 같으며, 정신(nous)에 관한 언표불가능성과 더불어 그것에 관해 언어성을 초월한 근원적 논리 구조를 갖는다고 보기에 이 역시 스토아주의와 상당히 유사하다. 그러나 그럼에도 불구하고 몇 가지 차이점이 존재한다. 로고스에 대한 유물론적 관점인 스토아주의는 절대계를 구성하는 형태의 논리 구조에 공간성을 부여하는 반면, 신플라톤주의는 절대계의 그것이 질료를 구성하는 시간성, 공간성은 물론이고 어떠한 동질적인 성격조차 갖지 않는다는 논리를 내세운다. 이성적 사유 내에서 명증되지 않는 '체험'에 관해, 스토아주의자들은 그저 현상적 인지 및 경험일 뿐이라는 입장으로 나아갔으나, 신플라톤주의자들은 그 어떠한 이성적 설명으로 제공될 수 있는 체험을 중시하는 쪽으로 나아갔고 이는 신플라톤주의가 후기로 접어들수록 신비주의적 요소가 강해지는 이유가 되었다.[3]

참고 문헌[편집]

외부 링크[편집]

각주[편집]

  1.  Richard T. Wallis. 박기철, 서영식, 조규홍. 2011년. 신플라톤주의. 누멘. pp. 91-92
  2.  Richard T. Wallis. 2011년. pp. 104-105
  3.  Richard T. Wallis. 2011년. pp. 85-86