2022/01/22

기세춘 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

기세춘 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

기세춘

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

기세춘(奇世春, 1933년 ~ )은 대한민국의 재야운동가이자 한학자이다. 본관은 행주. 호는 묵점(墨店).[1]

생애[편집]

1933년 전라북도 정읍에서 태어났다.[2] 조선 선조 때 성균관 대사성을 역임한 기대승의 15대손이며, 조부는 의병활동을, 부친은 항일운동을 했다. 일본학교에 다니는 대신 서당에서 사서삼경 등 한학수업을 받다가 나중에 초등학교 5학년으로 편입하였다. 전주사범학교를 졸업하고 전남대학교 법과대학에 입학했으나, 4.19혁명에 적극가담하고, 5.16이 일어나자 입산했다.

서울시에 근무하면서 1963년 동학혁명연구회를 창립, 후진국개발론, 통일문제를 연구했다. 1968년 통일혁명당 사건에 연루되어 신영복 교수 등과 함께 조사를 받았으나 기소유예로 판결을 받아 옥살이를 하지 않았다.

이후 대전에서 작은 기계공장을 운영하며 사출기, 자동포장기 등을 설계, 제작하며, '평화통일연구회' '사월혁명연구회' '전북민주동우회' '평화와 통일을 여는 사람들' '국민화합운동연합' 등에서 사회운동을 했다.

동서양의 철학에 몰입하여 다수의 번역서, 해설서를 냈다.[3]

저서[편집]

  • 묵자 - 천하에 남이란 없다, 1992년
  • 예수와 묵자, 문익환 공저, 1994년
  • 중국역대시가선집, 신영복 공저, 1994년
  • 주체철학 노트, 1997년
  • 신세대를 위한 동양사상 새로 읽기 - 유가, 묵가, 도가, 주역, 2002년
  • 동양고전 산책 1,2권, 2005년
  • 장자, 2006년
  • 장자(완역), 2007년
  • 성리학 개론 2007년
  • 노자 강의, 2008년
  • 묵자, 2009년
  • 논어 강의, 2010년

출처[편집]

Alternatives to Violence Project - Seattle | Facebook

Alternatives to Violence Project - Seattle | Facebook

Peace Pledge Union statement on Ukraine and Russia | Peace Pledge Union

Peace Pledge Union statement on Ukraine and Russia | Peace Pledge Union


Main menu
ABOUT
EVENTS
SHOP
EDUCATION
CAMPAIGNS
PEACE MATTERS
JOIN/RENEW
Back to top

PEACEBUILDING & NONVIOLENCE
REMEMBRANCE & WHITE POPPIES
EVERYDAY MILITARISM
MILITARY SPENDING & RECRUITMENT
Back to top


Peace Pledge Union statement on Ukraine and Russia
Friday 21 January 2022


The Peace Pledge Union (PPU) has today issued the following statement with regards to the prospect of war over Ukraine. The PPU is Britain's leading pacifist organisation and the British section of War Resisters' International.


The Peace Pledge Union shares the concern felt around the world about the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. Sending more troops and more weapons to the area is only making the situation worse.

We oppose the actions of politicians and military leaders on both the Russian side and the NATO/Ukrainian side who are stirring up military tension and using each other’s aggression to justify their own. We stand with people in all countries who are resisting the drive to war.

We utterly reject any suggestion that to oppose NATO’s militarism means supporting Vladimir Putin and Russian forces. We oppose militarism on all sides.

We condemn the action of the Russian government in building up troops on the Ukrainian border. We do not accept their claim that this is not aggressive because the troops are in Russian territory. We similarly condemn the aggressive actions of NATO members, including the US and UK governments, in building up troops on Russia’s other borders. This follows NATO’s expansion eastwards since the 1990s, which has broken promises made at the end of the Cold War.

Each side uses the other’s aggression to justify their own. Each side claims that their actions are purely defensive. This situation has occurred countless times before in many parts of the world. It illustrates the futility of seeking to solve conflict through violence. Militarism anywhere fuels militarism everywhere.

As the British section of War Resisters’ International, the Peace Pledge Union stands in solidarity with pacifists and other anti-militarists around the world. We are confident that the people of Ukraine, Russia, the US, the UK and all the other countries involved have more in common with each other than with the militaristic politicians, generals and arms companies who would wage war in their name.

As an organisation based in the UK, we note that UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss repeatedly states that UK troops and their NATO allies are promoting “freedom”. Yet the lack of democracy and civil liberties in Russia is mirrored in countries that the UK government counts among its military allies. NATO members include the authoritarian regime of Turkey. While Truss claims that UK troops in Estonia are defending freedom, other UK troops are training the Saudi forces bombing civilians in Yemen. The Ukrainian government has recently imprisoned members of our sibling organisation, the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, for campaigning against militarism; these actions mirror the Putin regime’s repression of peaceful activists in Russia.

There is no military solution to the crisis over Ukraine. We urge both sides to withdraw troops from each other’s borders and to stop pouring further troops and weapons into an already highly volatile situation. We encourage them to focus on tackling the real dangers that threaten us all, including Covid, poverty and the climate emergency. We support people in all countries who challenge militaristic polices and we welcome the actions of indviduals in the armed forces in any country who refuse to obey orders to fight or to prepare for war.



The Peace Pledge Union is a union of people who have pledged to reject war and to tackle the causes of war. Join us here!


Tags:
PEACEBUILDING & NONVIOLENCE
MILITARY SPENDING & RECRUITMENT


DONATE

JOIN THE PPU

RENEW MEMBERSHIP

VACANCIES

VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES

TAKE ACTION

CONTACT







MEN WHO SAID NO




PEACEBUILDING & NONVIOLENCE
REMEMBRANCE & WHITE POPPIES
EVERYDAY MILITARISM
MILITARY SPENDING & RECRUITMENT
Sign up to our eNewsletter!

Rethinking William Penn - Friends Journal

Rethinking William Penn - Friends Journal

Rethinking William Penn


January 1, 2022

By Trudy Bayer


Illustration of James Baldwin quote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced,” by Jill Flynn.

A Path to Retrospective Justice

William Penn is the most widely recognized Quaker in U.S. history, in no small part due to his settling the colony of Pennsylvania and to the Quaker Oats Company’s 1909 decision to appropriate his image to use on its iconic oatmeal box (since the late 1950s it has used a more generic colonial Quaker). As a child, I was struck by that image as well as by illustrations of Penn in our Pennsylvania history books. What a benevolent-looking man; what odd clothing; and most of all, what unusual beliefs! Penn was unlike so many of the other men we studied who were excused for exploiting Native Americans and breaking treaties with them. In contrast, Penn was portrayed as a friend and advocate to native people, particularly the Lenape, from whom he acquired the land where he founded Philadelphia. But it was his novel Quaker beliefs—that there is that of God in each of us, and that we can directly access the Divine—that left the biggest impression on me. His unwavering commitment to these beliefs in the face of ridicule and persecution was inspiring. Many years later when I joined the Religious Society of Friends, I was not at all surprised to find so many Quaker organizations bearing this hero’s name.

However, what most history books and encyclopedic narratives omitted or minimized was Penn’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. And it is this dimension of his legacy—and subsequently our own—that is under increasing scrutiny, thanks to the spotlight Black Lives Matter has cast on the relics and symbols of slavery we still commemorate. Consequently, how we continue to memorialize William Penn now taps at the conscience of every Quaker entity bearing his name.

Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) has responded to this query by changing the name of its Capitol Hill center from the William Penn House to Friends Place on Capitol Hill. This decision and the change it represents is a concern for many Friends. Primarily, they feel Penn is being unfairly judged when today’s “woke” values are applied to a man who lived centuries ago. As a result, they see Penn as another casualty of contemporary “cancel culture,” the tendency to remove and cancel public figures and other entities for behaviors we today judge as wrong.

I have consistently heard vocal ministry on the dangers of judging Penn by today’s standards. Yes, Penn was a slaveholder, but his slaveholding was the product and expression of his historical period and can only be understood and judged within that context. On multiple occasions, I have heard this historical explanation of Penn and slavery: White, wealthy, propertied men owned slaves. That’s what they did.

But are these statements accurate? What are the documented facts of the historical record? Would an honest accounting of the historical record alter our understanding of Penn’s role as a Quaker slaveholder? Is there a process whereby we can more fully discern the deeds of our ancestors?

Harold D. Weaver Jr.’s three-step plan for retrospective justice suggests a process to answer these questions. Weaver’s plan is adapted from the 2006 seminal publication by Brown University researchers on Slavery and Justice in which they identify three steps essential in retrospective justice. Weaver adapts these steps to offer a plan whereby Friends can acknowledge and document our participation in chattel slavery, and through this process build a more just society. Retrospective justice refers to:


attempts to administer justice decades or centuries after the commission of a severe injustice or series of injustices against persons, communities, nations or ethnic groups—in this case, a series of continuous historical events, including the Transatlantic slave trade, chattel slavery, and the legacy of continued oppression, exploitation, and humiliation through Jim Crow against people of African descent in the Unites States.

Retrospective justice involves: (1) formal acknowledgement of an offense, (2) a commitment to truth telling, and (3) making amends. Weaver’s model informs an understanding of the recent conflict surrounding William Penn.

There is little disagreement that Quakers were direct participants and profiters of slavery. But acknowledging this offense is usually accompanied with equal or greater emphasis on Quaker abolitionists. Vocal ministry that I have heard about recognizing and responding to the transgressions of Penn and other Quaker slaveholders is nearly always met with rejoinders emphasizing the groundbreaking role Quakers played in ending slavery, blending these two entirely unrelated matters. Shifting the focus away from the actual offense that many Quakers, like Penn, proliferated and profited from chattel slavery interferes with a clear, unequivocal acknowledgement of it. Brown University researchers observed this same reluctance to focus on and acknowledge the real offense across the very wide range of organizations and groups they studied. “Every confrontation with historical injustice begins with establishing and upholding the truth, against the inevitable tendencies to deny, extenuate, and forget.”

The second step towards retrospective justice, a commitment to truth telling, requires examining information about the offense honestly and documenting this information in the historical record and cultural memory of the respective group. How accurate are some of the common narratives about Penn and slavery, and do these narratives provide an honest account?

The dominant narrative accounting for Penn’s slaveholding is that he was a product of his historical moment, reflecting the norms and legal practices of his time. White, wealthy men owned slaves. However, this narrative does not comport with the facts. Penn was among a scant seven percent of Philadelphians who owned slaves. Among his fellow Quakers in Penn’s Woods, he was even more of an anomaly. In 1688, the nearby Germantown Meeting issued a “Petition Against Slavery,” indicting the evil institution, demanding its immediate abolition, and calling for universal human rights. The fact is that many of Penn’s Quaker contemporaries “woke” to the horrific suffering of slavery and human bondage, despite the constraints of their historical moment, but he did not. The historical account shows that Penn actively promoted the slave trade in Pennsylvania and was himself a slaveholder. He was at the dock when the first slave ship, Isabella, arrived in Philadelphia in 1684, and he purchased some of the 150 captured Africans held aboard. Further research reveals his motive.

For Penn, slaves were essential to expanding his holy experiment and the settlement and expansion of Pennsylvania. Not only were slaves advantageous to his new colony but also lucrative to his personal wealth. Penn acknowledged his preference for owning slaves (rather than indentured servants who would eventually earn their freedom) in his correspondence with the overseer of his plantation, Pennsbury Manor: “It was better they was blacks for then a man has them while they live.”

When an offense is clearly acknowledged and accounted for, we have an opportunity to do something about it: to make amends. This may involve monetary reparations but equally entails spiritual, interpersonal, cultural, psychological, and political dimensions. It is an attempt at atonement and reconciliation. As such, it touches both the oppressor and oppressed.

On a macro level, Weaver suggests: “After learning the truth of our history, I recommend that the Society of Friends commits to the memorialization of those affected by chattel slavery, designating an annual day of remembrance.” Many meetings and Quaker organizations are beginning to acknowledge Friends’ role in the transatlantic slave trade and consider actions we may take to begin healing the injustice and trauma of this legacy, which persists to this day.

FCNL’s decision to rename its hospitality house, whether guided consciously by a retrospective justice paradigm or not, is an example of how an awareness of systemic racism and our complicity in it evolves. When the house opened in 1966, it was acceptable to FCNL to identify its presence on Capitol Hill with the name of a slaveholder; more than half a century later, it is not.

Friends who object to this decision often characterize it as another example of cancel culture. In this narrative, Penn is the victim: wrongly judged and sanctioned. His role in slavery and, most importantly, his chattel and their descendants are absent. How would this concern change if it included the casualties of Penn’s slavery and their descendants? Of course, the question is rhetorical. We know that changing the focus of our perception reorganizes the entire picture and the story we tell about it.

Friends have only recently begun to examine and acknowledge our role in slavery, not as abolitionists or visionaries on the vanguard of the struggle for human rights, but as players in perpetration of one of the most egregious and long-standing crimes against humanity. Slavery was wrong regardless of who practiced it. It caused unimaginable human suffering. It is indefensible.

Heroes cast a very long shadow on their descendants. Their stories become core components of the collective identity and shared culture of any group. Heroes symbolize our highest ideals. The question is whether we are willing to know these heroes, and thus ourselves, honestly, or whether we prefer the illusion?

William Penn was not only a slave trader. He was a champion for religious freedom and tolerance. An accurate historical account of his slaveholding cannot cancel these facts. Rather, they provide an opportunity to know Penn and ourselves more honestly, and in that process begins a clearing of a path towards retrospective justice.

Capitol Hill
process
Quakers
William Penn House
Online Features

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)


Trudy Bayer

Trudy Bayer is a member of Pittsburgh (Pa.) Meeting. She was the founding director of the Oral Communication Lab, University of Pittsburgh and is a specialist in human rights communication, the rhetoric of social movements, and Lucretia Mott. Contact: trudy.bayer84@gmail.com.

2022/01/21

Pneuma Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia

Pneuma Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

pneuma

 noun
pneu·​ma | \ ˈnü-mə  ˈnyü- \
plural pneumas or pneumata\ ˈnü-​mə-​tə  ˈnyü-​ \

Definition of pneuma

1in theology SOULSPIRITspecifically HOLY SPIRITThe adherents of these movements believe that the pneuma—Holy Spirit—plays a central role in their lives and their communities — David Maxwell
2in classical medicine an invisible liquid or vapor held to travel throughout the body and to be necessary to and associated with lifePneuma, according to ancient Greeks and Romans, was a driving force in the body, necessary for maintaining bodily functions.— Judy Duchan
3in Stoicism a mixture of air and fire held to be the divine organizing principle of the universeOf the four elements, the Stoics identify two as active (fire and air) and two as passive (water and earth). The active elements, or at least the principles of hot and cold, combine to form breath or pneumaPneuma, in turn, is the 'sustaining cause' … of all existing bodies and guides the growth and development of animate bodies.— Dirk BaltzlyThe distinctive contribution of Stoicism, at any rate by the time of Chrysippus, was to extend the explanatory role of pneuma beyond individual animal life, and to make it the vital power of the world as a whole. … Pneuma is the vehicle of the divine 'reason' (logos) which pervades and governs the entire world …— David Sedley

---


pneuma

미국식[njú:mə]발음듣기영국식[njú:-]발음듣기

명사

정신, 영(靈); [P~] 성령(聖靈)(Holy Spirit)

---

지식백과

[그] 프네우마, 프노이마. 영(靈), 성령, 성신.

---

프뉴마pneuma, soul, spirit

---



Pneuma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" or "soul".[1][2] It has various technical meanings for medical writers and philosophers of classical antiquity, particularly in regard to physiology, and is also used in Greek translations of ruach רוח in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Greek New Testament.

In classical philosophy, it is distinguishable from psyche (ψυχή), which originally meant "breath of life", but is regularly translated as "spirit" or most often "soul".[3]

Classical antiquity[edit]

Presocratics[edit]

Pneuma, "air in motion, breath, wind", is equivalent in the material monism of Anaximenes to aer (ἀήρ, "air") as the element from which all else originated. This usage is the earliest extant occurrence of the term in philosophy.[4] A quotation from Anaximenes observes that "just as our soul (psyche), being air (aer), holds us together, so do breath (pneuma) and air (aer) encompass the whole world." In this early usage, aer and pneuma are synonymous.[5]

Ancient Greek medical theory[edit]

In ancient Greek medicinepneuma is the form of circulating air necessary for the systemic functioning of vital organs. It is the material that sustains consciousness in a body. According to Diocles and Praxagoras, the psychic pneuma mediates between the heart, regarded as the seat of Mind in some physiological theories of ancient medicine, and the brain.[6]

The disciples of Hippocrates explained the maintenance of vital heat to be the function of the breath within the organism. Around 300 BC, Praxagoras discovered the distinction between the arteries and the veins, although close studies of vascular anatomy had been ongoing since at least Diogenes of Apollonia. In the corpse arteries are empty; hence, in the light of these preconceptions they were declared to be vessels for conveying pneuma to the different parts of the body. A generation afterwards, Erasistratus made this the basis of a new theory of diseases and their treatment. The pneuma, inhaled from the outside air, rushes through the arteries till it reaches the various centres, especially the brain and the heart, and there causes thought and organic movement.[7]

Aristotle[edit]

The "connate pneuma" of Aristotle is the warm mobile "air" that in the sperm transmits the capacity for locomotion and certain sensations to the offspring. These movements derive from the soul of the parent and are embodied by the pneuma as a material substance in semen. Pneuma is necessary for life, and as in medical theory is involved with the "vital heat," but the Aristotelian pneuma is less precisely and thoroughly defined than that of the Stoics.[3]

Stoic pneuma[edit]

In Stoic philosophypneuma is the concept of the "breath of life," a mixture of the elements air (in motion) and fire (as warmth).[8] For the Stoics, pneuma is the active, generative principle that organizes both the individual and the cosmos.[9] In its highest form, pneuma constitutes the human soul (psychê), which is a fragment of the pneuma that is the soul of God (Zeus). As a force that structures matter, it exists even in inanimate objects.[10] In the foreword to his 1964 translation of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Maxwell Staniforth writes:

Cleanthes, wishing to give more explicit meaning to Zeno's 'creative fire', had been the first to hit upon the term pneuma, or 'spirit', to describe it. Like fire, this intelligent 'spirit' was imagined as a tenuous substance akin to a current of air or breath, but essentially possessing the quality of warmth; it was immanent in the universe as God, and in man as the soul and life-giving principle.[11]

Judaism and Christianity[edit]

In Judaic and Christian usage, pneuma is a common word for "spirit" in the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. At John 3:5, for example, pneuma is the Greek word translated into English as "spirit": "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit (pneuma), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In some translations such as the King James version, however, pneuma is then translated as "wind" in verse eight, followed by the rendering "Spirit": "The wind (pneuma) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit (pneuma)."

Philo, a 1st-century Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, commented on the use of Πνοή, rather than πνευμα, in the Septuagint translation of Genesis 2:7. Philo explains that, in his view, pneuma is for the light breathing of human men while the stronger pnoē was used for the divine Spirit.[12]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Entry πνεῦμα, in Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon, online version.
  2. ^ See pp.190, 195, 205 of François, Alexandre (2008), "Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages", in Vanhove, Martine (ed.), From Polysemy to Semantic change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations, Studies in Language Companion Series, 106, Amsterdam, New York: Benjamins, pp. 163–215.
  3. Jump up to:a b Furley, D.J. (1999). From Aristotle to Augustine. History of Philosophy. Routledge. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-415-06002-8LCCN 98008543.
  4. ^ Silvia Benso, "The Breathing of the Air: Presocratic Echoes in Levinas," in Levinas and the Ancients (Indiana University Press, 2008), p. 13.
  5. ^ Benso, "The Breathing of the Air," p. 14.
  6. ^ Philip J. van der Eijk, "The Heart, the Brain, the Blood and the pneumaHippocrates, Diocles and Aristotle on the Location of Cognitive Processes," in Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 131–132 et passim. ISBN 0-521-81800-1
  7. ^  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainHicks, Robert Drew (1911). "Stoics". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica25 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 942–951.
  8. ^ "Stoicism," Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Taylor & Francis, 1998), p. 145.
  9. ^ David Sedley, "Stoic Physics and Metaphysics," The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, p. 388.
  10. ^ John Sellars, Stoicism (University of California Press, 2006), pp. 98-104.
  11. ^ Marcus Aurelius (1964). Meditations. London: Penguin Books. p. 25. ISBN 0-14044140-9.
  12. ^ Bromiley, Geoffrey William; Kittel, Gerhard (1967). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-2247-5.

External links[edit]