[Namsan Ddalggakbari] Korean Philosophy Lives Through Sorrow, Together

Solving Problems in Our Language, People as Subjects of Philosophy
Philosophical Lineage of Ham Seok-heon, Ryu Young-mo, Moon Ik-hwan, Jang Il-soon
Emphasizing Philosophy That Empathizes with Sorrow

[Asia Economy Reporter Naju-seok] "There is no philosophy for those who, from someone else's outskirts, long for someone else's hometown and seek someone else's permission."

Philosopher Yu Daechil attempted to establish a new history of philosophy on this land. He aimed to introduce our own philosophical history, not philosophy imported from China or the West.

His effort differs in two major ways from previous methods of introducing Korean philosophy history. First, he tries to speak only about philosophy that is meaningful to us living in the present, under the title "Philosophy History of the Republic of Korea." Yu Daechil argues that "all past philosophy was merely philosophy that existed on this land," and it is not a philosophy history valid for us living in this era.

Therefore, the "Philosophy History of the Republic of Korea" draws a line separating the Three Kingdoms period, Goryeo period, and Joseon period. This is not simply because very old thoughts do not greatly influence our philosophical thinking today.

There is a clear gap between previous history and the history of the Republic of Korea. This lies in whether the people are the owners of history or not. If past philosophy was philosophy for the rulers, then in the philosophy history of the Republic of Korea, it was not so.

"Joseon philosophy was unaware of the suffering of Baekjeong (butchers), gisaeng (female entertainers), and nobi (slaves). It was cold logic with no emotion before their tears. It is natural because the people, the subjects of suffering, could not become the subjects of philosophy."

Yu Daechil claims that past philosophy on this land distanced itself from the life concerns of the majority of people living here, thus it could not become "true philosophy." Therefore, he defines even Joseon Neo-Confucianism, which influenced East Asia during the Joseon era, as a "failure" because it regarded the people as objects of education.

Second, the author raised doubts about whether institutional philosophy symbolized by university podiums can also be our philosophy.

"There is no place for philosophy for lazy people who do not ponder their own philosophy and wait for external miracles to come and solve their problems. Even if it is hard, one must overcome it by oneself. Even if it is hard, one must live by one's own answer, by one's own philosophy."

The author also expressed resistance to the existing trend of introducing foreign philosophy. If foreign philosophy is merely translated, it cannot narrow the distance to people's lives on this land. He emphasizes, "We neither reject others nor give up ourselves; just as we live in that position, our philosophy must do the same."

Foreign philosophy may inspire, but to become our philosophy, efforts to solve our concerns in our own language are necessary.

This is why the author regards Ham Seok-heon, Ryu Young-mo, Moon Ik-hwan, Jang Il-soon, Kwon Jeong-saeng, and Yun Dong-ju as the main branches of the philosophy history of the Republic of Korea. He criticized the philosophy taught by those who stood on university podiums and institutional philosophy emphasizing Korean tradition.

The author also emphasized the direction that Korean philosophy should take. It should be a philosophy that can express empathy for sorrow, a philosophy that is "together" with others.

"Philosophy should have presented theories that, through you in suffering, see me and strengthen the hands of those who have become us. It should have presented theories that prevent us from letting go of the hands we hold. Korean philosophy should have deepened in the face of their pain. Philosophy lives in sorrow."

He stresses that sorrow makes philosophy more philosophical and creates a space for empathy. It should be a philosophy that shares anger and laughter together in an absurd space.

The author also proposed that Korean philosophy began at a certain turning point in the Joseon period. He claims that when Jeong Yak-jong (1760?1801), who early converted to Catholicism, wrote the "Jugyo Yoji" (a Catholic catechism in Korean for believers who could not read Chinese characters), it marked the birth of Korean philosophy.

At that time, the "Jugyo Yoji" was organized to suit the situation of the Joseon people and differed from European missionaries' books. The author described this as the "conception (懷妊)" of Korean philosophy. Then, when Choe Je-u (1824?1864) wrote "Yongdam Yusa," which compiled Donghak thought, Korean philosophy was finally "born."

One characteristic of Korean philosophy the author points out is that it does not aim for a transcendental external entity but exists within us. To become a self that is truly "me," one must affirm oneself and undergo an internal transcendence process. Western learning (Seohak) placed hope in the Catholic God outside of oneself. However, Choe Je-u's Donghak differs in that hope is found within oneself.

Korean philosophy developed through the March 1st Independence Movement and the founding of the Republic of Korea. The author introduces the thoughts of six major thinkers who lived during this period and attempts to establish a new Korean philosophy history. However, it is questionable whether he persuasively argued that the thoughts of poets, religious figures, and fairy tale writers form the main branches of Korean philosophy. Except for Ham Seok-heon, it is also doubtful whether the philosophies of other thinkers were sufficiently covered.

Moreover, because the author's intended "meaning" is so strong, the 600-page book sometimes feels repetitive, which is a regrettable point.