Is the Four Major Rivers Project currently being implemented in Korea designed to bring about ecological restoration as the government has asserted? Or will it wind up destroying the ecology as environmental organizations and ecological specialists have clamored? If the latter turns out to be true, then not only the people and beings currently residing on the Korean peninsula, but also future generations, will find themselves facing a tremendous ecological disaster. Once seriously damaged, the natural ecosystem established over several thousands of years cannot be easily restored. Although this fact should be a serious cause for apprehension as far as the present project is concerned, the government, seemingly oblivious to the concerns of the public, has blissfully overseen the destruction of the ecosystem on a national scale in the name of green growth. The Korean nation has boasted of being nature-friendly, having respect for life, and loving peace since the days of Tan’gun. However, one cannot help but to question whether such traditions actually exist when looking at the Four Major Rivers Project.
Of course, such ecological crises occasioned by the destruction of ecosystems are not only our problem. The rapid development of science and technology and global industrialization has meant that, on the surface, mankind has over the past few centuries enjoyed a level of material well-being that has been unrivalled since the beginning of history. However, a closer look reveals that such advancements have been accompanied by serious environmental problems. These include the disposal of nuclear waste, air pollution, water pollution, the need to limit fossil fuel use, deforestation, an explosive increase in the population, acid rain, the destruction of the ozone layer, and global warming. The destruction of ecosystems has been based on the ‘mechanical view of the world’ and the ‘anthropocentric’ orientation behind Western modernity. The mechanical view of the world defines nature, that is, all beings other than man, as an extension of spiritless objects that are unable to think, and perceives organisms as automated machines.1 By objectifying nature and not recognizing natural objects right to life, as well boasting an anti-bioethical outlook under which no ethical awareness of the destruction of nature and life forms exists, the mechanical view of the world made possible a technology-oriented attitude that was used to justify the technological manipulation of life forms.2 In addition, the traditions of Judaism and Christianity in the West maintained that while humans endowed with reason, souls, and virtue could have their own values and rights, the instrumental value of natural beings lay in their ability to foster human prosperity. The ‘anthropocentrism’ and ‘instrumental view of nature’ in the West3 granted the rational justification for man’s conquest and rule over nature.4 The mechanical view of the world, anthropocentrism, global industrialization, and the significant development of science & technology removed nature’s vitality, and degraded it to the status of a mere implement to fulfill human desires and interests through a mutual engagement that has resulted in the thorough conquest, destruction, and exploitation of nature, all of which has led to an ecological crisis at the global level. The crisis faced by ecosystems ultimately threatened the survival of the human race that had to coexist with nature. As such, mankind now finds itself having paid a great price, in the form of ecological disasters, for its material well-being.5
It was amidst such a crisis awareness that the animal rights and environmental movements began to spring up in the West during the 1960s. With such movements serving as a backdrop, environmental philosophies and ethics started to form in the West.6 Various theories were also developed. These ranged from individualistic environmental ethics such as ‘anthropocentric environmental ethics’, animal liberation, animal rights, and biocentrism, to ecology-centered environmental ethics such as deep ecology, social ecology, and ecological feminism.7 In addition, the ecological crisis has created new interests in Asian philosophies such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism that are laden with ecological characteristics as well as organic elements. To this end, studies have been carried out in Korea since the late 1990s that have sought to reinterpret the traditional philosophies of Asia from modern viewpoints such as environmental ethics, ecological philosophy, and bioethics, and to search for alternatives which can be used to resolve the problems associated with the current ecological crisis.8 Ecological discourses related to Korean Confucianism have also been conducted in conjunction with this trend. Unlike environmental and ecological discourses in the West, which have been around for forty?fifty years, the study of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism only has a short history of some ten years. The results of such studies have also been limited to the initial and proclamation levels. There is a need to resolve many tasks in order for the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism to cement its status as an actual alternative which can be used to resolve the ecological crisis. As such, the time has come to move beyond the proclamation of mere assertions that Korean Confucianism includes an abundance of organic elements and ecological characteristics. In this regard, this study examines the current state of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism by analyzing and criticizing studies that have been conducted on this topic over the past ten years. Once this has been carried out, a discussion of the future tasks that must be achieved in order to ultimately position Korean Confucianism as a practical and detailed alternative that can be used to resolve the crisis afflicting ecosystems today will be undertaken.
1Kim Chaehŭi, Sin’gwahak sanch’aek [Promenade through new science] (Kamyŏngsa, 1995), 20–29/74–79. 2Kim Kukt’ae, Kwahak kisul munmyŏng ŭi panhwan’gyŏngsŏng [The anti-environmental nature of scientific and technological civilization], vol. 17, Kwahak sasang (Bŏmyangsa, 1996), 158–159. 3See Michael E. Zimmerman eds., Environmental Philosophy—From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998), 34–36/80–84. 4Pak Imun, Munmyŏng ŭi wigi wa munhwa ŭi chŏnhwan [The crisis of civilization and cultural transition] (Minŭmsa, 1996), 76–80. 5Kim Sea-jeong, “Hwangyŏng yulli e taehan tongyang ch’ŏrhakchŏk chŏpkŭn: yuga ch’ŏrhak ŭl chungsim ŭro [The Asian philosophical approach to environmental ethics: with a special focus on Confucian philosophy],” Pŏmhan ch’ŏlhak (Bumhan Philosophy Association) 29 (2003): 58. 6Michael E. Zimmerman eds., Environmental Philosophy—From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 1–2. 7Kim Sea-jeong, “Yuga saengt’ae tamnon ŭl t’onghae pon yuga saengt’ae yulli The ecological ethics of Confucianism as viewed through ecological discourses in Confucianism],” Tongsŏ ch’ŏlhak yŏn’gu (Korean Society For Philosophy East-West) 50 (December 2008): 81–84. 8As part of this trend, I have dealt with Confucian philosophy in the following papers, “Hwangyŏng yulli e taehan tongyang ch’ŏrhakchŏk chŏpkŭn: yuga ch’ŏrhak ŭl chungsim ŭro [The Asian philosophical approach to environmental ethics: with a special focus on Confucian philosophy]” and “Yuga saengt’ae tamnon ŭl t’onghae pon yuga saengt’ae yulli [The ecological ethics of Confucianism as viewed through ecological discourses in Confucianism].”
II. THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ECOLOGICAL DISCOURSE WITHIN KOREAN CONFUCIANISM
Only a few studies have dealt with Korean Confucianism from the perspectives of environmental philosophy, environmental ethics, ecological philosophy, and ecology (hereafter referred to as ‘ecological perspectives’ for convenience) over the past ten years. In terms of the materials that deal with Korean Confucianism from an ecological perspective, the present research found three books, nine papers related to Neo-Confucianism, and eight papers related to Sirhak (Practical Learning).
Kim Uktong.
Han Myŏnhŭi.
Pak Hŭibyŏng.
>
B. Papers related to Korean Neo-Confucianism
Kim Sangjin. “
Chang Sŭnggu. “T’oegye sasang ŭi saengt’ae ch’ŏrhakchŏk chomyŏng [Highlighting Yi Hwang’s ecological philosophy].”
Chŏng Yŏnjŏng. “Sin Hŭm ŭi sisegye e mich’in
Lee Dong-hee (Yi Tonghŭi). “Sŏngnihak ŭi hwangyŏng ch’ŏrhakchŏk sisa [Environmental philosophical implications of Neo-Confucianism].”
Ro Young-chan (No Yŏngch’an). “Yulgok ujuron ŭi saengt’aeronjŏk amsi tŭl [The ecological allusions contained in Yi I’s theory of the cosmos].”
U Ŭngsun. “Chang Yu ŭi sayu pangsik e taehan han ihae—saengt’aehakchŏk insik ŭi mosaek [Understanding Chang Yu’s way of thinking—searching for ecological perceptions].”
Yi Chongho. “T’oegye Yi Hwang ŭi yugich’e ujuron kwa saengt’ae sasang [Yi Hwang’s theory of the organic universe and ecological thought].”
Yi Kiyong. “Yulgok ŭi chayŏn ihae wa ch’ŏnin kyoyŏ–Han’gukchŏk chayŏn’gwan ŭi sae p’aerŏdaim mosaek ŭl wihan siron [Yi I’s perception of nature and the relationship between heaven and man–Search for a new paradigm in terms of the Korean-style view of nature].”
Yu Sŏngsŏn. “Yulgok simnon e kŭn’gŏhan hwan’gyŏng yulli ŭi mosaek [Search for environmental ethics based on Yi I’s theory of the mind].”
>
C. Papers related to Korean Sirhak (Practical Learning)
Kim Chiyŏng. “Hong Taeyong ŭi
Kim T’aeo. “Hyegang sasang ŭi saengt’aejuŭijŏk kyoyuk wŏlli [The ecological education principle contained in Hyegang’s thought].”
———. “Hyegang ŭi taedongnon kwa sot’ongnon kŭrigo kyoyuk saengt’aehak [Hyegang’s theories of great harmony and communication and educational ecology].”
Ch’a Sŏnghwan. “Chŏng Yagyong kyŏnghak sasang i saengt’ae hwan’gyŏng wigi ŭi sidae e chunŭn sisajŏm [The implications of Chŏng Yagyong’s thought regarding the Confucian Classics in terms of the ecological crisis].”
Ch’oe Yŏngjin. “Inmulsŏng tongiron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk [An ecological interpretation of the theory of the Sameness-Difference of Human and Material Nature].”
Ch’oe Yŏngjin and Yi Haenghun. “Ch’oe Han’gi unhwaron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk [An ecological interpretation of Ch’oe Han’gi’s theory of functional activity].”
Pak Sumil. “21 segi munmyŏng kwa Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’ae chŏngsin [The civilization of the twenty-first century and Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit].”
———. “Kyoyuk ŭi kwanjŏm esŏ pon Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’aejŏk sigak kwa kŭ ŭimi [Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological perceptions as viewed from the educational standpoint and the implications thereof].”
Let us now summarize the above-mentioned three books. Pak Hŭibyŏng’s
The characteristics and significance of this book can be summarized as follows. First, the key significance of this book lies in the fact that it introduced the ecological discourse in the field of literature. In particular, it greatly influenced ecological studies in the field of Sirhak. For instance, Kim T’aeo introduced the three ecological views found in Korean traditional thought suggested by Pak Hŭibyŏng, and studied Ch’oe Han’gi’s ecological characteristics in his paper, “Hyegang sasang ŭi saengt’aejuŭijŏk kyoyuk wŏlli (The ecological education principle contained in Hyegang’s thought)” (2008). Furthermore, Pak Hŭibyŏng’s “Pak Chiwŏn ŭi myŏngsim e taehan saengt’ae munhakchŏk chŏpkŭn (The ecoliterary approach of Pak Chiwŏn toward the profound mind)” was further concretized as ‘ecology of the profound mind’ in Pak Sumil’s paper, “21 segi munmyŏng kwa Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’ae chŏngsin (The civilization of the 21st century and Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit)” (2010).12 In addition, Kim Chiyŏng’s “Hong Taeyong ŭi
The second book is Kim Uktong’s
Kim Uktong’s book is progressive in that it addresses not only the Sirhak scholars from the
Let us now take a look at Han Myŏnhŭi’s
Han Myŏnhŭi’s book can be regarded as featuring the following implications and limitations. In terms of the work’s positive implications, it is important to note that in his capacity as a scholar who majored in Western philosophy, and in particular environmental philosophy, Han has helped to widen the scope of studies by conducting an ecological discourse from the standpoint of comparative philosophy. This runs contrary to the majority of those involved in ecological discourses within the field of Asian philosophy, who have either majored in Asian philosophy or literature. Second, the majority of the papers related to the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism have been limited to the mere revelation of the organic or ecological elements embedded in Korean Confucianism. In this regard, Han’s work should be lauded for having introduced a new methodology and for having suggested the limitations of an ecological approach to Korean Confucianism. Moreover, it should also be commended for having suggested measures to overcome such limitations based on more in-depth discussions. On the other hand, the analysis of Korean Neo-Confucianism and Sirhak is too simple and generalized. Furthermore, Korean Neo-Confucian and Sirhak scholars exhibited different characteristics and trends across different periods. Nevertheless, Han’s determination of whether the above four issues were incorporated into Korean Neo-Confucianism and Sirhak is based on a generalization of the ecological studies conducted by a handful of scholars; this comes as part of his attempt to radically separate the groups into those that promoted passive and active ecologism, an approach that is open to criticism.18
Although saddled with the above-mentioned limitations and problems, these three books are nevertheless of great academic value and significance when it comes to the development of the ecological discourse as it pertains to Korean traditional thought. While Pak Hŭibyŏng and Kim Uktong can be said to have started the ecological discourse in the field of literature, Han Myŏnhŭi should be seen as having suggested a new direction for the ecological discourse within the field of philosophy. However, all three of these books can be regarded as introductory works that do not deal with the ecological thought found in Korean Confucianism in a profound manner. The publication of books that include an account of the ecological thought found in Korean Confucianism in general must therefore be seen as a task to address in the future.
Approximately nine papers that deal with Korean Neo-Confucianism from an ecological standpoint have so far been published. While one paper is concerned with Neo-Confucianism in general (Lee Dong-hee [Yi Tonghŭi], “Sŏngnihak ŭi hwan’gyŏng ch’ŏrhakchŏk sisa (Environmental philosophical implications of Neo-Confucianism)”), two deal with Yi Hwang (Chang Sŭnggu, “T’oegye sasang ŭi saengt’ae ch’ŏrhakchŏk chomyŏng (Highlighting Yi Hwang’s ecological philosophy)” and Yi Chongho, “
First, the majority of these papers were focused on a few scholars. While there were many Neo-Confucian scholars, these papers focused exclusively on Yi Hwang, Yi I, Chang Yu and Sin Hŭm.19 Moreover, when we consider that there was only one paper written about Chang Yu and another about Sin Hŭm, we can rightfully conclude that these studies were for the most part concerned with Yi Hwang and Yi I. In addition, there was only one paper written about the ki philosopher Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk, an individual who could easily be considered a main subject of interest when it comes to the organic characteristics and ecological elements of Neo-Confucianism.20
Second, leaving aside the papers related to literature, little attention has been paid to the ecological approach in Neo-Confucianism from the standpoint of philosophy. While the literary approach was employed in papers dealing with Yi Hwang (Yi Chongho’s paper), Yi I (Kim Sangjin’s paper), Chang Yu and Sin Hŭm, those that approached the topic from the standpoint of philosophy consisted of Yi Tonghŭi’s general survey of Neo-Confucianism, Chang Sŭnggu’s paper on Yi Hwang, and papers by Yi Kiyong, Yu Sŏngsŏn and Roh Yŏngch’an that dealt with the philosophy of Yi I. To this end, while Yu Sŏngsŏn’s paper, “Yulgok simnon e kŭn’gŏhan hwan’gyŏng yulli ŭi mosaek (Searching for environmental ethics based on Yi I’s theory of the mind)” includes environmental ethics in its title, it only introduces Yi I’s mind theory in a general manner without really delving into environmental ethics or an ecological approach and analysis. As such, if we exclude Yu’s paper, then that leaves us with only four papers in the field of philosophy.
Third, compared to the field of literature, the range of figures dealt with in the field of philosophy is rather narrow. More to the point, while studies have been conducted on five scholars, namely Yi Hwang, Yi I, Chang Yu, Sin Hŭm, and Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk, in the field of literature, only Yi Hwang and Yi I have been examined in the field of philosophy.
There are approximately eight papers that highlight the Sirhak from the ecological standpoint. In this regard, while two papers are about Pak Chiwŏn (Pak Sumil, “21 segi munmyŏng kwa Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’ae chŏngsin (The civilization of the twenty-first century and Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit)” and “Kyoyuk ŭi kwanjŏm esŏ pon Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’aejŏk sigak kwa kŭ ŭimi (Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological perceptions as viewed from the educational standpoint and the implications thereof)”), another two papers are concerned with Hong Taeyong (Ch’oe Yŏngjin, “Inmulsŏng tongiron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk (An ecological interpretation of the theory of the Sameness-Difference of Human and Material Nature)” and Kim Chiyŏng, “Hong Taeyong ŭi
First, broad studies were carried out on the major representative Sirhak scholars such as Pak Chiwŏn, Hong Taeyong, Chŏng Yagyong, and Ch’oe Han’gi, all of whom belonged to the Pukhak (Northern Learning) School.
Second, these papers were limited to the study of individual scholars. While Yi Tonghŭi dealt with the ecological characteristics found in Korean Neo-Confucianism in general, no papers addressed the issue of the ecological elements and characteristics exhibited in Sirhak thought per se.
Third, various vantage points were used in conjunction with these papers. For example, while Ch’oe Yŏngjin focused on philosophy, Kim Chiyŏng’s approach was based on the literature field, Pak Sumil and Kim T’aeo’s the field of education, and Ch’a Sŏnghwan’s the sociology field. This can be regarded as the result of the fact that while Sirhak focused on the theories of
Fourth, there was a general lack of research conducted in the field of philosophy. While Yi Tonghŭi, Chang Sŭnggu, Yi Kiyong and Roh Yŏngch’an produced papers that were related to Neo-Confucianism from a philosophical standpoint, only Ch’oe Yŏngjin, who wrote papers about Hong Taeyong and Ch’oe Han’gi, produced papers about Sirhak from the standpoint of philosophy. Moreover, while some studies about Neo-Confucianism from the standpoint of philosophy were conducted in an in-depth manner, the above-mentioned papers on Hong Taeyong and Ch’oe Han’gi were introductory works at best.
These problems regarding ecological approaches to a field of Korean Confucianism that includes Neo-Confucianism and Sirhak can be regarded as a result of the short history of the study of the ecological discourses within Korean traditional thought, and the general lack of specialists and interest. In this regard, the significance of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism will be assessed in sections III and IV based on the results of the above-mentioned studies.
9Pak Hŭibyŏng, Han’guk ŭi saengt’ae sasang [Ecological philosophy of Korea] (Tolbegae, 1999), 15–36. 10“Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk ŭi chayŏn ch’ŏrhak [Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk’s philosophy of nature],” “Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk ŭi ch’ŏllisi [Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk’s philosophical poems],” “Sin Hŭm ŭi hangmun kwa sasang [Sin Hŭm’s learning and thought],” “Sin Hŭm ŭi chayŏn sihak [Sin Hŭm’s poems about nature].” 11“Hong Taeyong ŭi saengt’aejŏk segyegwan [Hong Taeyong’s ecological view of the world],” “Hong Taeyong sasang e issŏsŏ mul a ŭi sangdaesŏng kwa tongilsŏng [The role of the relativity and sameness of objects and the self in Hong Taeyong’s thought],” “Pak Chiwŏn sasang e issŏsŏ ŏnŏ wa myŏngsim [The role of language and the profound mind in Pak Chiwŏn’s thought],” “Pak Chiwŏn ŭi sanmun sihak [Pak Chiwŏn’s prose poems].” 12Pak Sumil, “21 segi munmyŏng kwa Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’ae chŏngsin [The civilization of the 21st century and Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit],” Journal of East Asian Cultures (Institute for East Asian Cultures, Hanyang University) 47 (May 2010). 13Kim Chiyŏng, “Hong Taeyong ŭi Ŭisan mundap ŭl t’onghae salp’yŏ pon Han’guk saengt’ae sasang ŭi kanŭngsŏng [Korean ecological thought as viewed through Hong Taeyong’s Ŭisan mundap],” Ŏmun yŏn’gu 33–2 (Summer 2005). 14Kim Uktong, Han’guk ŭi noksaek munhwa [The green culture of Korea] (Munye Publishing, 2000), 219. 15Kim Uktong, Han’guk ŭi noksaek munhwa [The green culture of Korea] (Munye Publishing, 2000), 221. 16Chapter 3. Han’guk ŭi chŏnt’ong sasang kwa chayŏn’gwan, saengt’aejŏk hamŭi [Korean traditional thought and the view of nature, ecological implications]; 2. Han’guk Yubulsŏn ŭi sasang kwa chayŏn’gwan [Korean Confucian, Buddhist, and Zen thought and their respective perceptions of nature]: 109–131; 3. Han’guk ŭi Sirhak, Tonghak, kŭrigo chayŏn’gwan [Korea’s Sirhak and Tonghak and their perception of nature]: 131–141; 4. Han’guk chŏnt’ong sasang ŭi saengt’aejŏk hamŭi [The ecological implications of Korean traditional thought]: 142–150. 17Han Myŏnhŭi, Tongasia munmyŏng kwa Han’guk ŭi saengt’aejuŭi [East Asian civilization and Korean ecologism] (Philosophy and Reality Publishing, 2009), 101–150. 18A detailed discussion of this matter will be undertaken in Chapters III and IV. 19Even if we add the two papers, “Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk ŭi chayŏn ch’ŏrhak [Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk’s philosophy of nature]” and “Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk ŭi ch’ŏlli si [Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk’s poems of philosophy]” found in Pak Hŭibyŏng’s book to this total, this only amounts to five scholars who were in effect covered by such studies. 20The two papers about Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk included in Pak Hŭibyŏng’s book, Han’guk ŭi saengt’ae sasang [Ecological philosophy of Korea] were respectively a general introduction to Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk’s ki philosophy and poems. One would be hard-pressed to state that these papers dealt with his work from an ecological standpoint.
III. THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATIONS OF KOREAN NEO-CONFUCIANISM
In this section, an analysis of the ecological characteristics and problems of Korean Neo-Confucianism will be carried out based on an examination and criticism of the research that has highlighted Korean Neo-Confucianism from the ecological standpoint. After having conducted a general introductory analysis of Korean Neo-Confucianism, the present study will then analyze the works on Yi Hwang (1501–1570) and Yi I (1536–1584).
1. The ecological characteristics of Korean Neo-Confucianism in general
In his book (Chapter 3
Han’s assertion that Neo-Confucianism encompassed ‘the connectivity of nature and the ‘non-instrumental value of nature’ is not very different from those found in previous works on Neo-Confucianism. Furthermore, the reason why Neo-Confucianism did not have any practical program to socially concretize an ecologism-based ideology can be construed as being because the destruction caused to the ecosystems at the time was yet not very serious. However, there is room for debate as far as Han’s assertion that it was difficult to see that Neo-Confucianism clearly accepted the ‘ecological limitedness of society’ is concerned. As principle (理,
In his paper, Yi Tonghŭi asserted that Neo-Confucianism boasted a third view of nature that differed from the anthropocentrism and naturism of the West. The third view of nature, which is a convergence of the humanism of Confucianism and the unique organic view of nature found in Neo-Confucianism, can be referred to as ‘humanistic ecology’ or ‘organistic humanism.’ This third view of nature is identified as a very dynamic and dialectic viewpoint under which the two viewpoints of environmental ethics are harmonized.24 In the case of Korean Neo-Confucianism, Yi Hwang’s theory of principle (主理論,
This establishment of a new view of nature that revolves around the definition of Korean Neo-Confucianism as ‘humanistic ecology’ can be regarded as a meaningful attempt to revive traditional thought. However, the attempt made in this paper to ultimately unify the philosophical diversity of Korean Neo-Confucianism, which is at an earlier point in the study divided into the theory of principle, theory of vital energy, theory of only-yi or rationalism (唯理論,
In his paper, Chang Sŭnggu identified Yi Hwang’s perception of nature as one that was rooted in the Daoistic view of nature. In addition to highlighting Yi Hwang’s thought from the standpoint of ecological philosophy, Chang also attempted to reestablish Yi Hwang’s perception of respect (敬). For Yi Hwang, nature was a world of truth and life from which vivid life forms emerged, a world of purity devoid of all human desires, a world of aesthetics within which the beauty of the four seasons unfolded, and, in its capacity as the indefinite source, the origin of all beings. As previously mentioned, Chang defined Yi Hwang’s view of nature as being rooted in the ‘Daoistic view of nature.’27 When highlighted from the standpoint of ecological philosophy, it is difficult to regard Yi Hwang’s thought, which was based on the unity of heaven and man, as having originated from anthropocentrism. It is also difficult to regard it as having been rooted in biocentrism or ecologism. Rather, Chang argues that Yi Hwang’s thought included elements of both. Moreover, he maintains that while Yi Hwang’s theory of principle may have emphasized the universality of the whole more than the uniqueness of individuals, Yi Hwang maintained a neutral position in which he refused the dichotomy between individualism and holism. Lastly, Chang stresses that while Yi Hwang recognized the intrinsic value of all beings based on the concept of
Written from the standpoint of literature, Yi Chongho’s study revolves around the premise that Yi Hwang’s profound emotional understanding of humanity can be combined with ecological thought to create the aesthetics of coexistence (共生) and mutual betterment (相生). Yi approached the structure and characteristics of Yi Hwang’s organic view of the universe from the standpoint of the notion of
Such an attempt to identify elements and implications which can be used to establish a new ecological philosophy and thought in Yi Hwang’s thought is indeed a fresh undertaking. However, the granting of excessive importance to Yi Hwang’s thought may lead to the emergence of other problems. A perusal of Chang Sŭnggu’s paper might lead one to believe that all the ecological problems society faces today could be resolved through the application of Yi Hwang’s thought. For example, the assertion that Yi Hwang’s thought was more rooted in reality than deep ecology makes it look as if Yi Hwang’s thought has already emerged as a direct and realistic alternative through which to actually resolve the current ecological crisis. Can it really be maintained that Yi Hwang’s thought is more practical than deep ecology? Although deep ecology has excessive features, it has suggested detailed alternatives that are based on an astute diagnosis of the ecological crisis afflicting modern society. However, the same does not hold true where Yi Hwang’s thought is concerned. Yi Hwang did not suggest any alternatives to analyze the ecological crisis based on a realistic problem awareness, or to resolve such problems. Only we who are living through the contemporary era can apply Yi Hwang’s thought to the reality as pertains to the problems that have caused this ecological crisis. Furthermore, while the assertion that Yi Hwang’s thought possessed both elements of anthropocentrism and ecologism and maintained a neutral position between individualism and holism, would seem to cover both aspects, it can be attacked from both of these sides when applied to actual problems.
Yi Chongho’s paper can be assessed as having helped to develop the ecological thought embedded in Yi Hwang’s study from both the standpoint of literature and philosophy. Moreover, by shedding light on the practical aspect of Yi Hwang’s ecological thought evident in his own life, Yi Chongho also introduced the possibility that the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism could move beyond the ‘knowledge’ level and into that of concrete ‘action.’ However, Yi Chongho’s paper is also plagued by a fundamental problem. Yi Hwang’s emphasis on anthropocentrism and human subjectivity evident in his statement that man, as the most intelligent of all beings, represented the mind of heaven and earth, as well as his proclamation of the oneness of objects and self (物我一體) based on the one principle (一理), can be regarded as a clear departure from the tenets of deep ecology. On the other hand, his claim that nature had to be chosen over man in a situation where one had to inevitably choose between the two is definitely reminiscent of the tenets of deep ecology. The duality of Yi Hwang’s thought could help to position it as a new alternative with which to overcome the problems caused by anthropocentrism and ecologism. However, it also runs the risk of being nothing more than an idle ideological argument that is unable to resolve any problems related to the ecological crisis. Furthermore, when focused on preserving the earth, based on the notion of the oneness of the earth and man, the argument can lead to regarding the sacrifice of man in order to preserve the earth as being inevitable under a mentality that degrades the status of man. To this end, it is necessary to pay attention to Han Myŏnhŭi’s assertion that ecologism is inherently limited by the fact that its propensity to sacrifice man and culture for the earth as a whole exposes it to claims of eco-fascism.34 There is a need to conduct more in-depth discussions as to how Yi Hwang’s ecological thought can be differentiated from the anthropocentrism and ecologism of the West, and how Yi Hwang’s thought can overcome the limitations inherent in such philosophies.
3. Yi I’s theory of the cosmos and ecological perceptions
Three papers related to Yi I were published in the field of philosophy. In his study, Yi Kiyong suggested that Yi I’s philosophy of nature and man was based on the relationship between heaven and man (天人交與,
Kim Sangjin can be regarded as the only scholar in the field of literature who focused on Yi I’s poem,
Ro Young-chan can be regarded as having saliently highlighted the ecological characteristics and implications of Yi I’s thought by contrasting his thought with that of Yi Hwang. However, Ro’s study does not introduce any detailed measures or alternatives as to how the realistic problem known as the ecological crisis can be resolved. Ro’s simple statement that the notions of
21Han Myŏnhŭi, Tongasia munmyŏng kwa Han’guk ŭi saengt’aejuŭi [East Asian civilization and Korean ecologism] (Philosophy and Reality Publishing, 2009), 49–52. 22Ibid., 143–144. 23Ibid., 50. 24Yi Tonghŭi, “Sŏngnihak ŭi hwan’gyŏng ch’ŏrhakchŏk sisa [Environmental philosophical implications of Neo-Confucianism],” Tongyang ch’ŏlhak (The Society for Asian Philosophy in Korea) 13 (September 2000): 35. 25Ibid., 49. 26Ibid., 35. 27Chang Sŭnggu, “T’oegye sasang ŭi saengt’ae ch’ŏrhakchŏk chomyŏng [Highlighting Yi Hwang’s ecological philosophy],” T’oegye hakpo (The T’oegye Studies Institute) (2001): 236. 28Ibid., 237–241. 29Ibid., 246. 30Ibid., 249. 31Yi Chongho, “T’oegye Yi Hwang ŭi yugich’e ujuron kwa saengt’ae sasang [Yi Hwang’s theory of the organic universe and ecological thought],” Han’guk hanmunhak yŏn’gu [Journal of Korean Literature in Hanmun] (Society of Korean Literature in Hanmun) (2004): 41–51. 32Ibid., 52–59. 33Ibid., 62. 34Han Myŏnhŭi, Mirae sedae wa saengt’ae yulli [Future generations and ecological ethics] (Philosophy and Reality Publishing, 2007), 240. 35Yi Kiyong, “Yulgok ŭi chayŏn ihae wa ch’ŏnin kyoyŏ–Han’gukchŏk chayŏn’gwan ŭi sae p’aeradaim mosaek ŭl wihan siron [Yi I’s perception of nature and the relationship between heaven and man––Search for a new paradigm in terms of the Korean-style view of nature],” Journal of Asian Philosophy (The Society for Asian Philosophy in Korea) 13 (2000): 98–125. 36Yu Sŏngsŏn, “Yulgok simnon e kŭn’gŏhan hwan’gyŏng yulli ŭi mosaek [Searching for environmental ethics bases on Yi I’s theory of the mind],” Yulgok sasang yŏn’gu (Association of Yulgok Study) 4 (2001): 98. 37Ro Young-chan, “Yulgok ujuron ŭi saengt’aeronjŏk amsi tŭl [The ecological elusions found in Yi I’s theory of the cosmos],” in Yuhak sasang kwa saengt’aehak [Confucianism and ecology], ed. Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong, trans. O Chŏngsŏn (Yemun sŏwon, 2010), 249–268. 38Ibid., 251. 39Ro Young-chan, “Yulgok ujuron ŭi saengt’aeronjŏk amsi tŭl [The ecological elusions found in Yi I’s theory of the cosmos],” in Yuhak sasang kwa saengt’aehak [Confucianism and ecology], ed. Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong, trans. O Chŏngsŏn (Yemun sŏwon, 2010), 255. 40Ibid., 261–262. 41Ibid., 267–268. 42“Kusan kugokka [高山九曲潭],” in vol. 10, Yulgokhak yŏn’gu ch’ongsŏ [Collection of essays on the studies of Yulgok] (Yulgok Society, 2007), 459–484. 43Kim Sangjin, “Kosan kugokka ŭi sŏngnihakchŏk saengt’ae insik [The Neo-Confucianism based ecological perceptions found in the Kosan kugokka],” Sijohak nonch’ong (Han’guk Sijo Hakhoe) 20 (2004): 58–59. 44Ibid., 63–64. 45Ibid., 71. 46Yulgok chŏnsŏ [栗谷全書], “人者, 天地之心也, 人之心正, 則天地之心亦正, 人之氣順, 則天地之氣亦順矣,” in vol. 14, 雜著 1, 天道策. 47Yi Kiyong, “Yulgok ŭi chayŏn ihaewa ch’ŏnin kyoyŏ—Han’gukchŏk chayŏn’gwan ŭi sae p’aeradaim mosaek ŭl wihan siron [Yi I’s perception of nature and the relationship between heaven and man—search for a new paradigm for the Korean-style view of nature],” Journal of Asian Philosophy (The Society for Asian Philosophy in Korea) 13 (2000): 111–118.
IV. THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATIONS OF KOREAN SIRHAK
No papers have to date been produced that have approached Korean Sirhak (Practical Learning) as a whole from an ecological standpoint, or discussed its ecological characteristics in a profound manner. In his study entitled, “Sirhak sasang kwa noksaek munhwa (Sirhak thought and green culture)” Kim Uktong raises the possibility that along with the concepts of liberty, science, and reality suggested by Ch’ŏn Kwanwu, ecologism could also be pointed out as another characteristic of Sirhak (Practical Learning). Kim asserted that Sirhak scholars showed a level of interest in nature that went beyond simple economic reforms. More to the point, the economic reforms called for by the Sirhak scholars were fundamentally different from the tenets of modern capitalism that seeks to maximize profits. In this regard, the Sirhak scholars intended to develop and use nature in an effective and nature-friendly manner. They also regarded man and nature not as dichotomous beings, but rather as one organic entity. Kim stresses the point that the economic logic of Sirhak is reminiscent of the modern notion of ‘sustainable development and growth.’48 The term ‘sustainable development,’ which first emerged in the UN report entitled “Our Common Future” published in 1987, is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.49 Anthropocentric environmental ethics are derived from how man’s ethical obligations toward the natural world impact interactions with other humans. The need to respect the rights of man can be regarded as the reason why we create specific limitations and restrictions when we discuss the environment, and the manner in which we should treat all the beings who reside on the earth other than man. In addition, there is also a need to protect and enhance the well-being of mankind, including that of people from the third-world and future generations.50 That being the case, Sirhak, which as mentioned before evokes the notion of ‘sustainable development and growth,’ can be accepted as being closer to anthropocentric environmental ethics than ecocentrism. However, Kim Uktong’s analysis of individual Sirhak scholars from the standpoint of ecological elements inherently contrasts with his assertion that Sirhak thought was akin to ‘sustainable development and growth.’ There is a clear need to determine whether Sirhak thought was more in keeping with anthropocentric environmental ethics or ecocentrism. The absence of any further discussions on Korean Sirhak as a whole in a detailed and profound manner makes it essential to discuss the ecological characteristics of Korean Sirhak. This task is carried out herein by analyzing and criticizing the work that has so far been conducted on the ecological discourses of Bukhak (Northern Learning) scholars such as Hong Taeyong (1731?1783), Pak Chiwŏn (1737?1805), Chŏng Yagyong (1762?1836) and Ch’oe Han’gi (1803?1877), individuals who have been the main topic of interest in the study of Sirhak scholars.
1. Equality between man and objects (人物均) and ecological egalitarianism
Although Han Myŏnhŭi purportedly discusses the Sirhak School as a whole in Chapter 3 of his book, “Ecological implications of Korean traditional thought and views of nature,” the actual focus is in fact limited to Hong Taeyong and Pak Chega. As such, Han’s essay can be regarded as a discussion of the Pukhak (Northern Learning) School. Han’s evaluation of Sirhak is based on the previously mentioned four main ecological themes. First, in the case of Hong Taeyong, Han assessed that his assertion that man and nature enjoyed equal rights in the eyes of the heavens could be construed as evidence that Sirhak fell under the category of a passive ecologism in which the connectivity of nature and the non-instrumental value of nature are embedded. Furthermore, Hong Taeyong’s emphasis on the egalitarian view of society, abolition of the discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate, abolition of the discrimination between the four classes of society (scholars, farmers, artisans and tradesmen), and his introduction of policy measures designed to correct the land system that served as the basis of public life can also be perceived as evidence that Korean Sirhak to some extent accepted the ‘ideological concretization program’. However, such conclusions are clouded by the presence of the notion of
While Han sets out to discuss Korean Sirhak as a whole, he in fact limits himself to the study of the thought of Hong Taeyong and Pak Chega. Although Han encompasses the thought of these individuals in the overarching category called Sirhak, the Sirhak School in fact boasted a variety of schools of thought. While the Sirhak School was separated into proponents of the notion of
1) The ecological characteristics of Pak Chiw?n
In his study, Pak Sumil divided the ecological spirit of Pak Chiwŏn into the following elements: 1) ecology of living creatures, 2) relational ecology, and 3) ecology of the profound mind. First, Pak Chiwŏn’s view of the world was one that was rooted in the criticism of the futile pursuit of justification found in Neo-Confucianism and calls for the focus to be placed on useful concepts anchored in reality. For example, Pak supported the notion of
In his work, Pak Sumil presents an organized assessment of the ecological spirit embedded in Pak Chiwŏn’s thought. Pak Chiwŏn criticized the errant prejudice encompassed in ‘self-centrism’ and ‘anthropocentrism,’ and called for the removal of fallacies through a process of self-abnegation rooted in the profound mind and the move towards the actualization of the equality of all beings. This runs contrary to the tenets of Neo-Confucianism under which man is defined as the heart of heaven and earth (天地之心). Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit implies an overcoming of the anthropocentric prejudice of today in which human beings endowed with reason and souls are regarded as possessing intrinsic values. Such assertions, namely that the stratification of values should be destroyed as we do away with discrimination and prejudice and move toward the equality of beings, are similar to those found in the ecological egalitarianism rooted in ecocentrism.58 However, regardless of Pak Sumil’s explanation, it cannot be denied that the concept of
1) Hong Taeyong’s ecological thought
Ch’oe Yŏngjin’s study, “Inmulsŏng tongiron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk (Ecological interpretation of the theory of the Sameness-Difference of Human and Material Nature)”, introduced Hong Taeyong’s theory of the oneness of man-nature-animals (人物性同論) as part of his wider analysis of the
Pak Hŭibyŏng argues that not only were Hong Taeyong’s epistemology and ontology laden with ecological aspects, but his ecological leanings were also evident in his general perceptions of the relationship between objects, between nature and human, and between nations.61 Based on his analysis of Hong’s writing,
Pak’s study clearly exposes the characteristics of Hong Taeyong’s ecological thought in a profound and organized manner. Hong Taeyong exhibited a clearly different position from Neo-Confucianists when it came to the perception of nature and the relationship between nature and man. Although Yi Hwang and Yi I promoted the organic view of nature (cosmos), both scholars identified man as the most outstanding being of all. More to the point, man’s status as the ‘mind of heaven and earth’ was regarded as the basis for the acceptance of the hierarchal differences between man and all other beings. However, Hong Taeyong criticized anthropocentrism on the grounds that man and nature should be regarded as equal from the standpoint of equality between man and objects. He also maintained a critical position with regards to human civilization, which he regarded as having caused the distinction between the self and nature and as having forced man to grow further away from the supreme harmony. Furthermore, although he claimed equality between man and objects, Hong Taeyong did not directly assert the oneness of objects (nature) and man; meanwhile, Yi Hwang and Yi I both supported, based on the notion of one principle (理一), the oneness of objects (nature) and man. Although Hong Taeyong promoted the need to perceive nature from the standpoint of heaven, he did not assert that man could or should participate in the development of all beings between heaven and earth. Viewed from this vantage point, Hong Taeyong’s philosophy can be said to have been more akin to ecocentrism than anthropocentrism. Hong Taeyong’s thought is consistent in part with deep ecology, which promotes the notion of ‘ecological egalitarianism’ under which all beings have an equal right to live and bloom.67 Furthermore, the critical attitude toward civilization under which nature is perceived as having been further exploited and the distinction between the self and nature worsened as a result of the development of human desires and civilization can be linked to Arne Naess’ assertion, “Man does not have any right to deplete the wealth and diversity of nature; we should maintain smaller human populations and decrease man’s encroachment of nature”.68 However, Hong Taeyong’s excessive egalitarianism and criticism of civilization may also lead to the same problems as those associated with deep ecology. Deep ecology identifies man and nature as equal members of the life community, and attaches the same value to man and all beings in nature. However, by doing this, deep ecology runs the risk of degrading the value and status of human beings, which can be seen as the utmost result of global evolution, in favor of nature, while degrading man to the status of accessory to nature. In the extreme case, it opens itself up to the criticism that it represents an example of an eco-fascism under which man is regarded as being expendable in the name of actualizing the true value of the natural ecosystem.69 As such, there is a need to discuss this issue within the wider ecological discourse on the thought of Hong Taeyong, a scholar whose leanings were closer to deep ecology than those of any other scholar.
2. Can Ch?ng Yagyong be regarded as an ecologist?
Ch’a Sŏnghwan’s paper, “Chŏng Yagyong kyŏnghak sasang i saengt’ae hwan’gyŏng wigi ŭi sidae e chunŭn sisajŏm (The implications of Chŏng Yagyong’s thought regarding the Confucian Classics in terms of the ecological crisis)” can be regarded as the only study that approaches Chŏng Yagyong’s thought from an ecological standpoint. Ch’a shed new light on Chŏng Yagyong’s thought from the standpoint of ‘ecological environmental politics’, a position that is closely related to sociology. The characteristics of Chŏng Yagyong’s ecological and environmental thought, that is, as seen by Ch’a Sŏnghwan, can be summarized as follows. First, the universe surrounding man forms the house in which the former lives. Viewed from the standpoint of human nature, only man can rule the world.70 For example, Chŏng Yagyong asserted, “Animals and plants are part of an order in that they all exist to elevate man, to keep man warm, to raise man, and to serve man. What else can rule the world except man? Heaven regards this world as a house within which man is expected to pursue virtue. The sun, moon, stars, trees and grass, and animals are all entities which support this house.”71 Second, the life forms which make up the ecosystem enjoy different natures (性). There are three different natures. While trees and grass boast life but lack knowledge, animals enjoy life and knowledge. Meanwhile, the nature of man is characterized by life, knowledge, exquisiteness, and an orientation towards good. Third, man contributes to reaching the acme of central harmony by organically connecting the natural realm to the entire cosmos, thereby achieving a functional balance and bringing about the harmonized prosperity of all beings. However, in accordance with the standard of morality (愼獨,
Ch’a Sŏnghwan asserted that the characteristics of Chŏng Yagyong’s ecological and environmental thought were rooted in Chŏng’s perception that the universal ecological environment, which he believed existed to serve man, could not automatically function without the intervention of the latter. Such intervention was limited to special measures on the part of saints such as the establishment of institutions to actualize the nature of objects that make up the ecological environment. In order to make the universal ecological environment that constituted a house for man function, a form of ecological environmental politics known as the ideal state of central harmony (致中和) had to be established by virtuous men endowed with a sacred mind who served the heavenly ruler (上帝).73
Based on these assertions, Ch’a Sŏnghwan introduced new modern images of saints, virtuous men, and ordinary people, all of which he regarded as important elements of universal ecological environmental politics. For example, the saint can be interpreted as a ‘cultural intellectual’ who develops the ecological ethics needed to actualize the true nature of the objects that make up the universal ecological environment that serves as the house of man. Meanwhile, the virtuous man can be likened to a new political bureaucrat who is able to move beyond merely serving the interests of the human world and continuously maintain balance and harmony with nature. Lastly, the ‘public’ referred to by Chŏng Yagyong is one that can accept the imposition of regulatory regulations by the cultural intellectuals as part of their environmental vision and environmental politics, with these regulations perceived as being inevitable for the survival and prosperity of the entire human race, and this even if they may conflict with their actual interests.74
Ch’a Sŏnghwan’s study reestablishes the characteristics of Chŏng Yagyong’s ecological and environmental thought from the standpoint of ‘ecological environment politics,’ and searches for political measures that could be used to resolve the current ecological crisis. His study stands out from other papers, which focused exclusively on the identification of ecological elements and the significance thereof, in that Ch’a introduces detailed measures with which to resolve the current crisis. However, despite its significance, his ecological approach to Chŏng Yagyong inevitably suffers from the following fundamental problems. In fact, when compared with other Confucian scholars, Chŏng Yagyong’s thought can be regarded as having been endowed with relatively few ecological elements, and as having leaned more towards anthropocentrism than ecologism. For example, unlike other Confucian scholars, Chŏng Yagyong did not support an ‘organic view of the universe’ that was based on the notions of
2. Ch’oe Han’gi’s great harmony and a communication-based organic society
There are three studies related to Ch’oe Han’gi. In his philosophy-based study, “Ch’oe Han’gi unhwaron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk (Ecological interpretation of Ch’oe Han’gi’s theory of functional activity),” Ch’oe Yŏngjin identified the characteristics of Ch’oe Han’gi’s view of nature found in his theory of circulation and change (運化論), and delved into the possibility of using it as an alternative solution for the current ecological crisis. Ch’oe Yŏngjin analyzed the structure and characteristics of Ch’oe Han’gi’s theory of circulation and change, which he divided into three aspects: The true nature of ki, triple structure of circulation and change (運化), and the oneness of man and nature. Ch’oe Yŏngjin asserts that the seeds for the development of an alternative philosophy with which to overcome the ecological crisis lies in these elements. Ch’oe Han’gi’s theory of circulation and change, which promotes the oneness of man and nature, differs from the Neo-Confucianism based view of nature in that it is rooted in the tangible
On the other hand, in his two studies, “Hyegang sasang ŭi saengt’aejuŭijŏk kyoyuk wŏlli (The ecological education principle contained in Hyegang’s thought)” and “Hyegang ŭi taedongnon kwa sot’ongnon kŭrigo kyoyuk saengt’aehak (Hyegang’s theories of great harmony and communication and educational ecology),” Kim T’aeo highlighted Ch’oe Han’gi’s thought from the standpoint of education, and in particular educational ecology. Kim identified three aspects as the characteristics of Ch’oe Han’gi’s perception of ecology contained in his study of
Furthermore, Kim T’aeo identified two elements as the key to the ecological education principle contained in Ch’oe Han’gi’s thought: the theory of great harmony (大同論) and the theory of communication (疏通論). When viewed from the ecological standpoint, the theory of great harmony can be regarded as having three overarching characteristics: The first is that of great love. More to the point, Ch’oe Han’gi asserted that philanthropic love toward man and nature should be regarded as true love.79 Here, the philanthropic spirit under which one loves both man and nature should be perceived as the key to Ch’oe Han’gi’s understanding of the notion of great harmony. The second is the notion of the continuous transformation of
Kim T’aeo not only actively delved into the ecological characteristics of Ch’oe Han’gi’s thought, but also searched for measures to establish educational ecology that could be applied to the modern era. In this regard, it can be evaluated as being of greater academic value than the other studies on this topic. Ch’oe Han’gi’s thought, which was discussed in the above-mentioned three studies, shares many similarities with ecocentrism. First, the assertion found in the preface to
48Kim Uktong, Han’guk ŭi noksaek munhwa [The green culture of Korea] (Munye Publishing, 2000), 219. 49Wikipedia, http://enc.daum.net/dic100/contents.do?query1=10XXX95919 (accessed April 27, 2011). 50Hwang Kyŏngsik, Kaebang sahoe ŭi sahoe yulli [Social ethics of an open society] (Philosophy and Reality Publishing, 1997), 380–381. 51Han Myŏnhŭi, Tongasia munmyŏng kwa Han’guk ŭi saengt’aejuŭi [East Asian civilization and Korean ecologism] (Philosophy and Reality Publishing, 2009), 147–148. 52Pak Sumil, “21 segi munmyŏng kwa Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’ae chŏngsin [The civilization of the twenty-first century and Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit],” Journal of East Asian Cultures (Institute for East Asian Cultures, Hanyang University) 47 (May 2010): 220–221. 53Ibid., 227. 54Ibid., 227–230. 55In his work Hojil (虎叱, a political fable of the Qing dynasty) Pak Chiwŏn states, “You often mention about heaven when discussing principle and nature (性). However, from the standpoint of heaven, tigers and humans are both regarded as animals. Viewed from the standpoint of the magnanimous heavens and earth that have given life to all beings, tigers and grasshoppers, silkworms and bees, ants and humans all live together. They should not quarrel or be estranged from one another.” 56Pak Sumil, 21 segi munmyŏng kwa Pak Chiwŏn ŭi saengt’ae chŏngsin [The civilization of the 21st century and Pak Chiwŏn’s ecological spirit], 233. 57Ibid., 234–236. 58Naess defined the deep ecology movement as advocating an ecological egalitarianism under which all beings have “equal rights to live and bloom” based on a relational, total-field image. (Arne Naess, “The Shallow and Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary,” Inquiry 16 (1973): 96–96.) 59Ch’oe Yŏngjin, “Inmulsŏng tongiron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk [Ecological interpretation of the theory of the sameness-difference of human and material nature],” Journal of Confucian Thought (The Korean Society of Confucianism) 10 (1998): 57–68. 60Kim Chiyŏng, “Hong Taeyong ŭi Ŭisan mundap ŭl t’onghae salp’yŏ pon Han’guk saengt’ae sasang ŭi kanŭngsŏng [Korean ecological as viewed through Hong Taeyong’s Ŭisan mundap],” Ŏmun yŏn’gu 33–2 (Summer 2005): 431–449. 61Pak Hŭibyŏng, “Hong Taeyong sasang e issŏsŏ mul-a ŭi sangdaesŏng kwa tongilsŏng [The relativity and similarity between nature and the self found in Hong Taeyong’s thought],” Han’guk ŭi saengt’ae sasang [Ecological philosophy of Korea] (Tolbegae, 1999), 278. 62Tamhŏnjip [湛軒集], 4, Ŭisan mundap [醫山問答], Chapters 18–19. “天地之生, 惟人爲貴.[⋯] 以人 視物, 人貴而物賤, 以物視人, 物貴而人賤, 自天而視之, 人與物均也.[⋯] 今爾曷不以天視物, 而猶以人 視物也?” 63Pak Hŭibyŏng, “Hong Taeyong sasang e issŏsŏ mul-a ŭi sangdaesŏng kwa tongilsŏng [The relativity and similarity between nature and the self found in Hong Taeyong’s thought],” Han’guk ŭi saengt’ae sasang [Ecological philosophy of Korea] (Tolbegae, 1999), 280–281. 64Ibid., 283. 65Ibid., 284–290. 66Ibid., 292. 67Arne Naess, “The Shallow and Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: a Summary,” Inquiry 16 (1973): 95–96. 68Michael E. Zimmerman eds., Environmental Philosophy—From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 196–197. 69Kim Sea-jeong, “Saengt’aegye wigi wa yuga saengt’ae ch’ŏrhak ŭi paljŏn panghyang [The crisis of ecosystems and the direction of the development of ecological philosophy within Confucianism],” Ch’ŏrhak yŏn’gu (Korean Philosophical Society) 85 (2003): 94–95. For example, Tom Regan asserted, “Advocates of synoptic anti-anthropocentrism who find themselves in a situation where they must kill man or a rare wild flower will inevitably see the killing of man as being justified in order to protect the rare wild flower which contributes to the integration, stability, and beauty of the land community.” (No Hŭijŏng, “Hwan’gyŏng yullihak esŏ ŭi kaech’eron kwa ch’ongch’eron ŭi t’onghap” (Ph.D. diss., Korea National University of Education, 2002), 114.) 70Ch’a Sŏnghwan, “Chŏng Yagyong kyŏnghak sasang i saengt’ae hwan’gyŏng wigi ŭi sidae e chunŭn sisajŏm [The implications of Chŏng Yagyong’s thought regarding the Confucian Classics in terms of the ecological crisis],” Tamnon (The Korean Association of Socio-Historical Studies) 201, (2010): 7–8. 71Chŏng Yagyong, Kukyŏk yŏyudang chŏnsŏ: Nonŏ kogŭmju (Kyŏngjip III), trans. Institute of Honam Studies (Chunnam University Press, 1989), 134–135. 72Ch’a Sŏnghwan, Chŏng Yagyong kyŏnghak sasang i saengt’ae hwan’gyŏng wigi ŭi sidae e chunŭn sisajŏm [The implications of Chŏng Yagyong’s thought regarding the Confucian Classics in terms of the ecological crisis], 9–21. 73Ibid., 23. 74Ibid., 25–28. 75Ch’oe Yŏngjin and Yi Haenghun, “Ch’oe Han’gi unhwaron ŭi saengt’aehakchŏk haesŏk [Ecological interpretation of Ch’oe Han’gi’s theory of functional activity],” Taedong munhwa yŏn’gu (Taedong Institute for Korean Studies) 45 (2004): 119–136. 76Ch’uch’ŭngnok [推測錄], “人道出於天道, 推測出於流行,” 2, 天人有分. 77Ch’uch’ŭngnok [推測錄], 2, 「自然當然」, “自然者, 天地流行之理. 當然者, 人心推測之理也. 學者, 以 自然爲標準, 以當然爲工夫.” 78Kim T’aeo, “Hyegang sasang ŭi saengt’aejuŭijŏk kyoyuk wŏlli [The ecological education principle contained in Hyegang’s thought],” Philosophy Education (The Philosophy Education Society of Korea) 35 (2008): 268–271. 79Injŏng [人政], 25, 愛有大小. 80Kim T’aeo, “Hyegang ŭi taedongnon kwa sot’ongnon kŭrigo kyoyuk saengt’aehak [Hyegang’s theories of great harmony and communication and educational ecology],” Philosophy Education (The Philosophy Education Society of Korea) 41 (2010): 246–253. 81Ibid., 253–261. 82Ibid., 264–265. 83Ch’uch’ŭngnok [推測錄], 3, 「推情測性」/6, 「推物測事」 84Arne Naess pointed out that the resolution of the current ecological crisis is predicated on the maximization of self-realization through the expansion of the self or ego towards nature as a whole, including animals and plants. For his part, Thomas Berry believes that overcoming the ecological crisis requires a move from ‘anthropocentric norms’ to ‘biocentric norms’. This move towards biocentric norm includes the realization that the life community made up of all living species is actually a bigger entity with greater value, and that the main interests of man would be best served by accepting the need to enhance the preservation of this wider life community. (Kim Sea-jeong, “Saengt’aegye wigi wa yuga saengt’ae ch’ŏrhak ŭi paljŏn panghyang [The crisis of ecosystems and the direction of the development of ecological philosophy within Confucianism],” Ch’ŏlhak yŏn’gu (Korean Philosophical Society) 85 (2003): 94. 85Ch’uch’ŭngok [推測錄], 6, “天是器也, 地亦器也, 人亦器也.”; Sin’git’ong (神氣通)/2, “人身形體, 是一 機械也.” 86Ch’oe Chindŏk, “Hyegang kihak ŭi ijungsŏn ge taehan pip’anjŏk sŏngch’al [Critical introspection of the duality of Hyegang’s study of ki],” Hyegang Ch’oe Han’gi (Ch’ŏnggye, 2000):140–141. 87Kim T’aeo, Hyegang sasang ŭi saengt’aejuŭijŏk kyoyuk wŏlli [The ecological education principle contained in Hyegang’s thought], 271.
This study analyzed the study of the ‘ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism’ which has been carried out since the late 1990s. The history of the study of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism is much shorter than that of the environmental and ecological discourses in the Western world, which, stimulated by the environmental movement of the 1960s, started in earnest in the 1970s. Even if we account for the fact that this particular field of study only started to be active recently, the results of the study of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism so far can only be regarded as having been insignificant. Only twenty research papers have been produced over the past ten years. Moreover, when we exclude the studies that are of an introductory or declarative nature, only ten papers related to the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism have so far been published. Thus, this field of study has remained at an introductory level. However, this does not mean that the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism is devoid of implications, or that it has no future. The problems that have caused the ecological crisis cannot be resolved in one day. These problems cannot be resolved by a single theory or measure. To this end, the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism may emerge in the future as an alternative discourse with which to resolve the problems associated with the ecological crisis. However, many tasks need to be addressed before the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism can move from the realm of the possible to the realistic. In this regard, this study summarizes the ecological characteristics and problems exposed by the analysis of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism and also takes a look at the future tasks that will need to be resolved.
First, let us take a look at the ecological discourse within Korean Neo-Confucianism. Scholars such as Yi Hwang and Yi I were at the forefront of the ecological discourse within Korean Neo-Confucianism. The ecological characteristics and problems exposed by the ecological discourses within Korean Neo-Confucianism can be summarized as follows. First, the ecological characteristics of the Korean Neo-Confucianism that revolved around Yi Hwang and Yi I can be identified as an ‘organic view of the universe,’ in which the self and external objects are regarded as one body based on the principle of oneness. Second, Korean Neo-Confucianism includes both elements of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. Third, while Yi Hwang exhibited anthropocentric tendencies, Yi I boasted ecocentric ones. Fourth, although Korean Neo-Confucianism includes abundant ecological characteristics, it differs from ecocentrism in that it defines man as the most intelligent being and as the symbol of the mind of heaven and earth. Emphasizing these aspects makes it possible to establish alternatives with which to overcome the problems stemming from ecocentrism as well as the abuses occasioned by anthropocentrism. On the other hand, it is important to remember that failure to establish an organized and realistic theory and measures that reflect realistic conditions may result in allowing the anthropocentric and ecocentric elements of Korean Neo-Confucianism to block the creation of anything other than an obscure theory which cannot play any role in the resolution of concrete problems.
Next, let us look at the ecological discourse within Sirhak (Practical Learning). As even individuals from the same Pukhak (Northern Learning) School such as Pak Chiwŏn, Hong Taeyong, Chŏng Yagyong, and Ch’oe Han’gi exhibited their own tendencies, it becomes difficult to include all Sirhak scholars in one group. Be that as it may, the ecological characteristics of the Pukhak (Northern Learning) School represented by Pak Chiwŏn and Hong Taeyong can be summarized as follows: First, they regarded nature as a living creature (活物) and as an organic being. They also believed that an organic relationship existed between man and nature. Second, they criticized the notion of the superiority of man by asserting that when viewed from the standpoint of heaven, man and nature were equal. Third, contrary to Neo-Confucian scholars, they did not identify man as the symbol of the mind of heaven and earth. Their claims of the equality between man and objects are in many ways reminiscent of the notion of ecological egalitarianism found in ecocentrism. However, the notion of
Contrary to other Sirhak scholars, Chŏng Yagyong’s thought featured more anthropocentric elements than ecological ones. Rather than emphasizing the notion of the self and external objects as one body or the equality of man and objects, Chŏng’s beliefs were more akin to anthropocentrism. For instance, he believed that nature and the universe constituted the house in which man existed, only man could rule the world, and that man boasted the most advanced nature. However, Chŏng Yagyong’s awareness of man’s responsibility to nature is evidenced by his claims that man could only actualize his true nature by actualizing the true nature of all beings. Nevertheless, such human responsibilities were perceived as being an onus that was carried only by saints and virtuous men. As such, it may be unreasonable to seek to identify ecological characteristics in Chŏng Yagyong’s thought. That being said, one of the related tasks which should be undertaken is that of finding ways to harmonize the anthropocentric elements in his thought with ecocentrism. Furthermore, it is essential that practical measures that make it possible for the common people to not only actively participate in this process, but also assume the reins thereof, be drawn up. Meanwhile, unlike Chŏng Yagyong, Ch’oe Han’gi’s thought can be perceived as having been laden with organic and ecological elements. First, Ch’oe possessed an organic view of the universe that was based on the notion of the circulation of the one
As such, even though Korean Confucianism includes an abundance of ecological elements and characteristics, Neo-Confucianism and Sirhak (Practical Learning) differed in terms of the details, and such differences were also visible on an individual scholar basis. Furthermore, one also finds instances in which organic and mechanical theories coexisted within a scholar’s anthropocentric approach. These aspects may work as positive factors that will help to enrich the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism. However, the following tasks must be resolved in order for such a denouement to come to pass.
First, there is a need to extend the scope of research subjects. Although organic and ecological elements can be found in the thought of many Confucian scholars, only nine scholars, including Yi Hwang, have been dealt with as part of the study of the ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism. The ecological characteristics of Korean Confucianism can only truly be comprehensively highlighted when studies have been conducted on various scholars and theories, and the basis for the establishment of the Korean-style ecological theory needed within contemporary society has been prepared.
Second, it is essential that specialists be educated as part of efforts to establish an ecological philosophy and ethics that is based on Korean Confucianism. To date, only seven of the studies on ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism have been produced by experts in the field of philosophy. Including Lee Dong-hee, there are only six researchers in this field. In other words, each researcher has produced approximately one paper. Truth be told, practically no specialists in the field of ‘Korean Confucianism and ecology’ have been produced. In this regard, having failed to position itself as an actual and realistic alternative to the resolution of the ecological crisis as well as to conduct studies related to the ecological characteristics of Korean Confucianism in an in-depth manner, the ecological discourse has to date constituted nothing more than a temporary discourse. The ecological discourse within Korean Confucianism can only move beyond being an empty echo and entrench itself as a realistic alternative when numerous specialists capable of addressing these tasks in a concentrated and consistent manner are produced.
Third, there is a need, based on the results of the studies conducted at the initial stage of the search for the ecological significance and implications of Korean Confucianism, to move to the second stage of the reorganization and recreation the ecological implications of Korean Confucianism. To this end, there is a need to develop an understanding of the environmental and ecological philosophy/ethics of the Western world, as well as to perceive the general problems related to the ecological crisis within contemporary society. It is essential to move beyond the matter of focusing on the past or present and create a new ecological philosophy that integrates past and present as well as east and west.
Fourth, it is necessary to clearly identify the ecological characteristics of Korean Confucianism that differentiate it from the tenets of the ecological discourse in the Western world. The assertion that Korean Confucianism features many of the ecological characteristics found in the Western world can be regarded as little more than a starting point. For Korean Confucianism to become an important part of the attempts to resolve the ecological crisis, the unique characteristics of Korean Confucianism must be highlighted in order to help resolve the problems which the ecological discourse in the Western world have encountered; furthermore, concrete alternatives should be established through the advent of a creative encounter between the ecological discourses of the East and West.
Fifth, it is necessary to suggest realistic measures through which to resolve the ecological crisis, and to implement them in an active manner. While advocates of Buddhism have implemented concrete practical measures pertaining to the ecological crisis, Korean Confucianism has yet to prepare realistic and detailed alternatives that could help to resolve this crisis. Furthermore, the willingness to implement such measures, or even to design tools through which to gain feedback, has been sorely lacking. Confucianism cannot ignore the fact that the