화서 이항로는 직접적인 사승 관계없이 스스로 학문을 이룬 사상가이다. 하지만 그는 공자-주자-송자로 이어지는 학문적 도통관을 주장함으로써, 사실상 자신의 학문적 뿌리를 우암에 두었다. 우암과 화서의 학문적 성격은 표면적으로 이질적이다. 왜냐하면 우암은 율곡의 ‘심시기’를 계승한 주기적 성향의 학문에 속하는 반면, 화서는 ‘심고리’를 내세운 주리론자이기 때문이다. 그런 까닭에 그동안 우암과 화서의 관계 연구는 주로 화이 사상과 척사 정신에 집중되었다. 하지만 본 연구에서는 우암과 화서의 구체적인 학문 관계를 조명한다. 특히, 우암과 화서의 학문을 주기와 주리로 대치하게 한 심설을 중심으로 고찰한다.
구체적으로 본 연구는 화서가 우암의 “심을 기로써 말한 것도 있고, 리로써 말한 것도 있다.”는 강령을 충실히 계승한 점에 주목한다. 그리고 여기서 우암과 화서가 ‘기로써 말한 것’과 ‘리로써 말한 것’의 가리키는 바가 각각 다르다는 간재의 주장을 비판적으로 고찰한다. 특히, 우암이 『맹자』 <호연장>을 해석하면서 심을 리로써 말한 부분을 논지 전개의 중요한 근거로 삼는다. 심을 리로써 말한 것의 근본이 우암과 화서 모두 기에 대한 리의 주재에 있기 때문이다.
Hwaseo Yi Hang-ro is a thinker who achieved his own learning regardless of his direct education from teachers. However, he has virtually taken his academic roots as U-am by insisting on an academic view of the orthodoxy of Neo-Confucianism that leads to Confucius, Zhu Xi, and Song Si-Yeol. U-am and Hwaseo's academic characteristics are ostensibly disparate. For U-am belongs to the school focused on Ch'I (氣), which inherited the ‘Xin is Ch'i[心是氣]’ of Yulgok, while Hwaseo emphasizes to the theory of focused on Li (理), which claimed the ‘Xin is essentially Li [心固理]’. So, the study of the relationship between U-am and Hwaseo has focused mainly on Hwaee(華夷) thought and the spirit of Cheoksa(斥邪). But in this study, we reveal the specific academic relationship between U-am and Hwaseo. In particular, the study centers on the ‘Xin theory[心說]’ of separating the studies of U-am and Hwaseo into ‘the focusing on Ch'i[主氣]’ and ‘the focusing on Li[主理]. Specifically, the study notes that Hwaseo faithfully inherited the doctrine "Xin can speak as Ch'i or Li." of U-am. And here it critically examines Ganje's claim that U-am and Hwaseo have different pointing points for ‘what is said as Ch'i’ and ‘what is said as Li’. In particular, the part where U-am said Xin as Li in interpreting on Haoran Chapter by Mencius is an important basis for the development of the argument. Because the root of what Xin said as Li lies in the presider of Xin, both U-am and Hwaseo.
Hwaseo Yi Hang-ro is a thinker who achieved his own learning regardless of his direct education from teachers. However, he has virtually taken his academic roots as U-am by insisting on an academic view of the orthodoxy of Neo-Confucianism that leads to Confucius, Zhu Xi, and Song Si-Yeol. U-am and Hwaseo's academic characteristics are ostensibly disparate. For U-am belongs to the school focused on Ch'I (氣), which inherited the ‘Xin is Ch'i[心是氣]’ of Yulgok, while Hwaseo emphasizes to the theory of focused on Li (理), which claimed the ‘Xin is essentially Li [心固理]’. So, the study of the relationship between U-am and Hwaseo has focused mainly on Hwaee(華夷) thought and the spirit of Cheoksa(斥邪). But in this study, we reveal the specific academic relationship between U-am and Hwaseo. In particular, the study centers on the ‘Xin theory[心說]’ of separating the studies of U-am and Hwaseo into ‘the focusing on Ch'i[主氣]’ and ‘the focusing on Li[主理]. Specifically, the study notes that Hwaseo faithfully inherited the doctrine "Xin can speak as Ch'i or Li." of U-am. And here it critically examines Ganje's claim that U-am and Hwaseo have different pointing points for ‘what is said as Ch'i’ and ‘what is said as Li’. In particular, the part where U-am said Xin as Li in interpreting on Haoran Chapter by Mencius is an important basis for the development of the argument. Because the root of what Xin said as Li lies in the presider of Xin, both U-am and Hwaseo.
