A Research Methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism

Bibliographic Data

ID19520614
AuthorsWeonki Yoo Weonki Yoo, Weonki Yoo (corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume16
Issue1
Pages177-197
Publication date2013-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueActa Koreana (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1520-7412 • E-ISSN: 2092-1357
PublisherAcademia Koreana (PUBLISHER • KR)
DOI10.18399/acta.2013.16.1.008
OpenAlexW2714787604
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited6

This article suggests a new research methodology for Korean Neo-Confucianism. In order to do this, we need first to be clear about the nature of Korean Neo- Confucianism in relation to the question of whether it can be legitimately called philosophy in the Western sense of the term. In this article, I shall focus on the following questions: (1) Is there such a thing as world or universal philosophy? (2) Can Korean Neo-Confucianism be considered to be world philosophy? (3) What is the reason for the Western rejection of non-Western thought as philosophy? And (4) what conditions are required for Korean Neo-Confucianism to remain as a science which is understandable to the ordinary man of reason? I offer a negative answer to (1) for the reason that there is no consensus on the definition of philosophy itself. And if there is no such philosophy, we do not have to be concerned with (2). In relation to (3), I examine Defoort who blames the rejection of the existence or legitimacy of Chinese philosophy on Western chauvinism or ethnocentrism. Unlike Defoort, I consider that the rejection is rather due to Western indifference to, or ignorance of, East Asian traditions of thought. The main contention here is that, although there is no such thing as world philosophy, contemporary Korean Neo-Confucian scholars still need to satisfy a number of basic conditions to make Korean Neo-Confucianism a science worthy of discussion in the future. In answer to (4), I here suggest consistency, validity, and conceptual clarity as such conditions. They are in general called logical elements since they are most commonly found in Western books on logic, but they are in effect “commonsensical” in that they are basic elements required in everyday conversation. It is hoped that the conditions should not be taken as a repetition of a controversy over the definition of philosophy, but simply as a “commonsensical” suggestion to write various traditions of thought in a “commonsensical” way

Neo-Confucianism · Theology · Chinese history and philosophy · Japanese History and Culture · Philosophy · Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access