The purpose of this study is to clarify the identity of Yi Hwang(李滉)''s philosophy, especially the theory of Li(理). Considering Yi Hwang''s status in Korea Neo-Confucianism, the study about the identity of Yi Hwang''s philosophy is very important because it is closely connected with the identity of Korea Neo-Confucianism. But It is very difficult to clarify what the identity of Yi Hwang''s philosophy is. So the interpretation about Yi Hwang''s theory of Li could not reach agreement.
There are two historical stances that have evaluated Yi Hwang’s philosophy. One thing is that ‘Yi Hwang’s philosophy is different from Chu Hsi''s Philosophy’, the other is that ‘Yi Hwang’s philosophy have inherited Chu Hsi''s Philosophy intactly’. That is, two stances are evaluations of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’. Here, the point is to understand Li, which is the core concept of Chu Hsi''s Philosophy. That ‘Yi Hwang’s philosophy is different from Chu Hsi''s Philosophy’ means that ‘Yi Hwang''s understanding of Li clashes Chu Hsi''s understanding of Li’. And that ‘Yi Hwang’s philosophy have inherited Chu Hsi''s Philosophy intactly’ means that ‘Yi Hwang''s understanding of Li does not clash Chu Hsi''s understanding of Li’.
The evaluation of ‘different’ came from Yi I(李珥) and his successors, since Yi I criticized that Libalsul(理發說) is the theory that insists there is activity of Li’, and his successors criticized even Lidongsul(理動說) and Lidosul(理到說). The other side, the evaluation of ‘sameness’ came from Yi Hwang’s successors who woulddefend Yi Hwang from that critique. Two different schools have debated about the activity of Li, but they have not agreed each other, during 400 years. To this days, the dispute continues. On the one hand, the modern scholars who support Yi I’ point of view evaluate that the insistence there is activity is the creativity of Yi Hwang''s theory. The other hand, the modern scholars who want to defend Yi Hwang evaluate that his Libalsul is not different entirely from Chu Hsi''s Philosophy.
After all, the key point is ‘activity of Li’. Namely, it is whether we can regard the theory of Libal(理發), Lidong(理動), Lido(理到) as insisting the activity of Li, or not although the theory is seen to that way superficially. However, here the author has a question. If ‘the frame of Li’s activity’ is the proper key point to clarify the identity of Yi Hwang''s philosophy, why many scholars do not still agree about the identity of Yi Hwang''s philosophy? Do they not agree because the key point that Yi I discovered is not enough?
This study will critically try to review stances that generally evaluate identity of Yi Hwang’s philosophy is creative or just follow Chu Hsi''s Philosophy, focusing attention on ‘activity of Li’. Existing disputes concentrated Yi Hwang’s theory of Libal, and in some cases, they evaluated it ambiguously without separating the theory of Libal from the theory of Lidong and Lido. But as the theory about ‘the theory of Mind and Nature Yi Hwang,’ the theory of Libal is different from theory of Lidong and Lido. The theory of Lidong is related with Cosmology of Yi Hwang, and the theory of Lido is related with Epistemology of Yi Hwang. So, to clarify the identity of Yi Hwang''s philosophy, we need to distinguish the theory of Libal, Lidong, Lido separately.
For these reasons, first, this study distinguishes the theory of Mind and Nature, Cosmology, Epistemology in Yi Hwang’s philosophy separately. And it analyzes in what context the theory of Libal, Lidong, Lido appear, what appearances of these theories mean, what their ends are, and what Yi Hwang intended to get through the expression of Libal, Lidong, Lido. In this way, we will approach the identity of Yi Hwang''s philosophy. In this study, we will clarify that the theory of Libal came from the process of justifying ‘the theory of two nature and two emotions’(二性二情論), that the theory of Lidong was the theory to justify the fundamental and absolute character of Li on ‘one Li’(一理), and that the theory of ‘Lido’ was presented to justify Epistemology of the inter communication of subject and object.