韓儒魚有鳳與李顯益的「人性、物性同異」之辯

The Debate on 'the Difference between Human Nature and the Nature of Things' by the Korean Confucians Eo You-bon and Yi Hyeon-ik

本文以牟宗三從朱子晚年的「人性、物性」定論來看待朱子「中和舊說」時期對於湖湘學者彪德美「人性、物性」說的理解與詮釋，並做為理論參照點，深入分析朝鮮儒學中，旁涉韓元震與金昌翕二位儒者的魚有鳳、李顯益「人性、物性同異」論辯，目的在探究朱子晚年對於「太極」與「性」關係的理解，即朱子晚年是否依然主張「太極即性」說？這涉及朱子於「中和舊說」時期對於胡五峰「人性、物性異」說的批判到其晚年是否依然成立的問題；換言之，這涉及朱子晚年是否在理論上可以贊成胡五峰之說的問題。在這個問題上，以「中和新說」後的朱子學為論學根據的韓儒有不同的見解。持「人性、物性同」論的魚有鳳與金昌翕固然認為朱子主張「太極即性」；持「人性、物性異」論的李顯益與韓元震卻有異見，李顯益也認為朱子主張「太極即性」。就此而言，魚有鳳、金昌協與李顯益都認為朱子不會同意胡五峰與彪德美之說，但韓元震卻認為朱子主張「太極不即是性」，而且朱子其實也肯定胡五峰的「人性、物性異」說。此外，這場論辯也是韓國儒學中唯一涉及胡五峰「人性、物性」說的論辯。
This article, referring with Mou Zongshan's contribution and framework, analyses the historical unique debates on 'the difference between the human nature and the nature of things' in Korean Confucian scholars, mainly Eo You-bon and Yi Hyeon-ik, as well as followed by Han Won-jinand and Kim Chang-heup. This analysis can help author responses to the question whether 'Tai-chi is nature' is Zhu Xi's view in his later life. The answer to the question will lead to what late Zhu Xi's commentary on Hu Wufeng's 'the difference of human nature and the nature of things' is. In order to find out Zhu Xi's real commentary, the Korean Confucians in accordance with Zhu Zix's 'new interpretation of equilibrium and harmony' had competing opinions. Eo You-bon and Kim Chang-heup, who held 'the human nature and the nature of things are the same,' thought Zhu Xi advocated 'Tai-chi is the nature.' However, those who held 'the human nature and the nature of things are different' reached no agreement. Yi Hyeon-ik also believed that Zhi Xi confirmed 'Ta-chi is the nature,' but Han Won-jin believed Zhu's assertation is 'Tai-chi is not the nature.' Therefore, author concludes that in Eo You-bon, Kim Chang-heup and Yi Hyeon-ik thought Zhu Xi would not agree 'the human nature and the nature of things are different' stated by Hu Wufeng and Bai Da-me, whereas Han Won-jin thought Zhu Xi would.

This article, referring with Mou Zongshan's contribution and framework, analyses the historical unique debates on 'the difference between the human nature and the nature of things' in Korean Confucian scholars, mainly Eo You-bon and Yi Hyeon-ik, as well as followed by Han Won-jinand and Kim Chang-heup. This analysis can help author responses to the question whether 'Tai-chi is nature' is Zhu Xi's view in his later life. The answer to the question will lead to what late Zhu Xi's commentary on Hu Wufeng's 'the difference of human nature and the nature of things' is. In order to find out Zhu Xi's real commentary, the Korean Confucians in accordance with Zhu Zix's 'new interpretation of equilibrium and harmony' had competing opinions. Eo You-bon and Kim Chang-heup, who held 'the human nature and the nature of things are the same,' thought Zhu Xi advocated 'Tai-chi is the nature.' However, those who held 'the human nature and the nature of things are different' reached no agreement. Yi Hyeon-ik also believed that Zhi Xi confirmed 'Ta-chi is the nature,' but Han Won-jin believed Zhu's assertation is 'Tai-chi is not the nature.' Therefore, author concludes that in Eo You-bon, Kim Chang-heup and Yi Hyeon-ik thought Zhu Xi would not agree 'the human nature and the nature of things are different' stated by Hu Wufeng and Bai Da-me, whereas Han Won-jin thought Zhu Xi would.