earticle

영어

I think as follows for issue of SHIBA`s "The Japanese and Japanese culture." 1) Buddhism and Confucianism of the continent are considered to be done the foundations of the Japanese culture on　recognizing the specificity of the unique position in Japanese culture, In addition, for claims of SHIBA that Confucianism and Buddhism has not been established as “a system and lifestyle”, could not have full support with some question. 2) Confucianism and Buddhism of CHOSUN brought about the negative effects that too much to admit ideation unrealistically. And consider it is a result of Political and geographical point as peninsula country. And then, SHIBA as a novelist to take care of historical material and empirical science, I would like to point out in relation to Korea, he was not really. 3) It is considered that there should be a deep research about the "perception of reality" and "subdivision of era." I think as follows should be positively evaluated for issue of SHIBA`s "The will to the Japanese." 1) Suffering that the country also interested in the real economy as a community leader and intellectual. And not only called for actively worry about the future but also practice that has proposed a solution by himself. 2) To recognize about the illegitimacy of the Pacific War and management of Manchuria. 3) Notifying with understanding that the weakness and danger of Japanese and Japanese culture frankly. 4) Expressed the opinion that the negative effects of Confucian culture outspoken against Korea. On the other hand, I should point out the possibility of a propensity to realistic non‐ideal method which have highlighted the ethical and philosophical despite based on the universality and the foundation of science and rationality. In addition, I would like to raise a question that "Etiquette" to be protected as a human being in this chapter why not that different from "system and lifestyle" of Confucianism and Buddhism ". And I should also point out the lack of documentation and empirical contradiction between the opinions that "CHOSUN was the country of zero money" and "CHOSUN had a trade with Japan as much as between Japan and Netherlands". Then, I wish to challenge for future research on the possibilities of mystical element of mysticism as an anti‐mysticism, multiple criteria may have been inherent in the fragmented era, and could have been included in recognition of his work and history of inward propensity to be pessimistic. “The criticism of the SHIBA's viewpoint of history’’ of Akira Nakatsuka and Masanori Nakamura are as follows. And I also agree. 1) It is impossible `The bright Meiji’ and `The blue Showa’ which like a classification history of one‐dimensional, Piecemeal and Non‐continuous. 2) The view point of "Homeland defense war" and position of the "Theory of irresponsible Emperor" are showing a lack of objectivity and scientific modern rationality which are the same as the general theory of distorted masses. 3) Problems of perception of reality that about lack of knowledge on the current state of CHOSUN and indifference to the Taisho Period were caused by neglect of the role of people and economic factors. 4) "Truth" and "Facts" must be the basic understanding of history. Universality is made from the truth and facts. And so it can be impressed on a new era of its universality.

일본어

『日本人と日本文化』の司馬の論点について論者は、1) 日本文化ならではの特異性を認める立場で、大陸の儒学と仏教が日本文化の根幹であると考える。さらに、儒学と仏教が｢生活習慣や体制｣として定着していないという司馬の主張に対しては、疑問点があり全面的賛同はできない。2) 朝鮮の儒学と仏教が、非現実的に観念化しすぎてしまって弊害をもたらしたのは認めるが、それは半島国の地理的・政治的結果のものであると考える。また、科学的・実証的資料を大事にする歴史小説家としての司馬が、朝鮮関係においてはそうでもなかったと指摘したい。3)｢時代細分化｣と｢現実認識｣に関する深層研究が要ると考える。『日本人への遺言』の司馬の論点について論者は、1) 社会のリーダー・知識人として実物経済にも関心を持って国のことを苦悩し、将来について積極的に心配のことを呼び掛けたばかりではなく、解決策を提案し自ら実践したこと。2) ｢太平洋戦争｣｢満州国経営｣の不当性を認めていること。3) 日本人と日本文化の弱点や危険性を見抜いて素直に述べたこと。4) 朝鮮儒教文化の弊害に対して率直な意見を表明したことは、肯定的に評価すべきだと考える。反面、合理性・科学性・普遍性を根幹としながらも、倫理的・哲学的接近方法を強調している理想的・非現実的性向の可能性を指摘せざるを得ない。さらに、ここで言っている人間として守るべき「礼儀作法」は、「生活習慣と体制」化した儒教と仏教とは違うものなのかという疑問点を提起したい。そして、「朝鮮は貨幣ゼロの国」といったのと｢朝鮮は日本とオランダ並みの貿易をしていた｣という意見の間の矛盾と実証的資料欠如を指摘しなければならない。さらに、反神秘主義者としての神秘主義的要素、時代細分化に内在しているかも知れない多重的基準、悲観的で内向き性向が彼の作品と歴史認識に含まれている可能性は今後の研究課題にしたい。中塚明と中村正則の｢司馬史観批判論｣は次のとおりであり、論者も同意する。 1) ｢明るい明治」「暗い昭和」という一次元的・断片的・非連続的歴史区分はあり得ない。2) 日露戦争、満州国経営の名分である「祖国防衛戦」と戦争に対する「天皇無責任論」の立場は、歪められた大衆的一般論と同様で、合理的・科学的・近代的客観性の欠如を見せている。3) 朝鮮の現状に関する知識不足、大正期への無関心などの現実認識の問題は「民衆の役割と経済的要因の軽視」が要因である。4) 歴史認識の基は｢事実」と「真実」でなければならない。事実と真実から普遍性は作られるし、その普遍性の上に感動できる新時代が期待できる。