초록 열기/닫기 버튼
As is often the case today, a number of Confucian ideas are misused, abused or left undone in Korea. The ideas of self-annihilation for the sake of one´s country (滅私奉公), and the principle of command and discipline (上命下服), well known among modern Koreans, were improvised Japanese-style terms dating from the Meiji Restoration. These ideas are not concepts recognized during the Chosun dynasty; nor are they original to Confucianism. By examining misuses of the idea of ‘忠孝’ (loyalty and filial piety), this study argues that there are errors in the understanding and criticism of modern Koreans on Confucianism. This study also proposes that Confucius and Mencius have never asserted the commonly held equivalence between Confucianism and loyalty and filial piety. To Confucius, filial piety (孝) meant respect (敬) toward parents, not the obedience of children to parents. Similarly, loyalty meant being faithful to one's duties, not obedience to power (monarch) or blind sacrifice for the country. The initial usage of loyalty and filial piety as a concept was derived from Legalism (Hanbija (韓非子)). The 20th chapter of Hanbija is titled as “Loyalty and Filial Piety”, where the terms of ‘loyalty and filial piety’ appeared for the first time in an official document. The theory of loyalty and filial piety and the principle of command and discipline, which were derived from Hanbija, came to be accepted as the ruling ideology at the beginning of the Chinese Han Empire. Japan, in particular, is the country where the principle of command and discipline is equivalent to the theory of loyalty and filial piety. The idea of loyalty and filial piety became established as Samurai ethical principles during the Tokugawa period. This concept became institutionalized as the logic of militaristic fascism centered on the Japanese emperor. Therefore, the idea of loyalty and filial piety familiar to modern Koreans is not an original Confucian concept but is originated with Japanese imperialism during the colonial period, with its foundation on Legalism.
