16 research outputs found
On Korea-EU Future S&T Cooperation: Focusing on the ways of the EU FP Participation through Comprehensive Agreement
The Incorruptibility of the Soul, the Resurrection of the Body, and the Concept of the Person in the Works of Thomas Aquinas
ν λ§μ€ μν΄λμ€(Thomas Aquinas, 1224/5-1274)λ κ³ λ κ·Έλ¦¬μ€ μ¬μμ κ·Όμμ λκ³ μλ μνΌμ λΆλ©Έμ±μ μνΌμ μ립μ±μ λΉλ‘―ν λ€μν κ·Όκ±°λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄ μ¦λͺ
νλ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μ΄μ ν¨κ» μΈκ°μ΄ μμ±μ λλ¬νκΈ° μν΄μλ 그리μ€λκ΅μ ν΅μ¬κ΅λ¦¬μΈ μ‘체μ λΆνμ΄ νμμ μ΄λΌκ³ μ£Όμ₯νλ€.
κ·Έμ μ€λͺ
μ β ' νμΈμμμ μ‘체μ μνΌμ κ²°ν©μ²΄, β‘' λ΄μΈμμ λΆλ¦¬λ μνΌ, κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ β’' λ΄μΈμμ λΆνλ μ‘체μ μνΌμ κ²°ν©μ²΄λΌλ μΈ λ¨κ³λ‘ λλμ΄ λ³Ό μ μλλ°, μ΄λ€μ΄ μ΄λ»κ² κ΄λ ¨λλκ°μ κ΄ν΄ λ§€μ° λ€μν 견ν΄λ€μ΄ μ μλμλ€. λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμλ λ€μν ν΄μλ€μ κ²ν ν κ²°κ³Ό λ€μκ³Ό κ°μ κ²°λ‘ μ λλ¬νλ€. ν λ§μ€λ ν μΈκ°μ΄ μνΌκ³Ό μ‘μ²΄κ° κ²°ν©λ μ€μ²΄λΌλ μμ μ κ΄μ μ μΌκ΄λκ², β‘' λΆλ¦¬λ μνΌμ΄ ν μΈκ° μ‘΄μ¬ λλ μΈκ²©μ΄ λκΈ°μλ λΆμΆ©λΆν κ²μΌλ‘ μ¬κΈ΄λ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μ΄λ¬ν μ£Όμ₯μ λ°λμ ν μΈκ°μ μ°μμ±μ΄ λ¨μ λλ κ²μΌλ‘ λ³Ό νμλ μλ€. λν λΆλ¦¬λ μνΌμ΄ λ³Έμ±μ κ±°
μ€λ₯Έλ€λΌλ ν λ§μ€μ ννμ μ λμ μΌλ‘ μλ¬΄λ° μμ©μ ν μ μλ€λ λ»μ΄ μλλΌ κ΄μ°°λλ κ΄μ μ λ°λΌ λ€λ₯΄κ² ν΄μλμ΄μΌ νλ€. ν λ§μ€λ μνΌμ λΆλ©Έμ±μ λν΄μλ κΈ°μ‘΄μ νλΌν€μ£Όμμ λ€λ₯Έ λ°©μμΌλ‘ μ리μ€ν ν
λ μ€μ μ©μ΄λ€μ μ¬μ©νμ¬ μ² νμ μΌλ‘ λ
Όμ¦νλ € νλ€. κ·Έλ¬λ κ·Έκ° μ μν μ‘체μ λΆνμ λν μ€λͺ
λ€μ μ격ν μλ―Έμ μ² νμ λ
Όμ¦μΌλ‘ λ°μλ€μΌ κ²μ΄ μλλΌ, μ μμ ν΅ν΄ λ°μλ€μΈ κ²μ μ΄μ±μ μΌλ‘ μ€λͺ
ν μ μλ νμ΄μνμ μΈ κΈ°μ΄λ₯Ό μ°Ύκ±°λ, μ μκ³Ό μλ°λλ λ΄μ©μ μ² νμ μΌλ‘ λ
Όμ¦νλ €λ μ΄λ€μ λ
Όλ°νλ κ²μΌλ‘ μ΄ν΄ν΄μΌ νλ€. ν λ§μ€κ° β 'μ β‘'μ κ°μ‘°μ μ λμ΄ μ΄μ λν μ² νμ μΈ λ
Όμ¦μΌλ‘ λ§μ‘±νμ§ μκ³ , μμ μ΄μ±μ μΌλ‘λ μ€λͺ
νκΈ° νλ β’'κΉμ§ λμκ°λ μ€λͺ
μ μ§μ°©ν κ²μ λ°λ‘ μΈκ° ꡬμμ λν κ΄μ¬ λλ¬Έμ΄μλ€. κ°λ³μ±, λ체λΆκ°λ₯μ±κ³Ό μ 체μ±μ μ§λ κ³ μ ν μΈκ²©, μ¦ κ°λ³μ μΈ μΈκ°μ΄ μΈμκ³Ό λ§Ίλ λ€μν κ΄κ³μ± μμμ μκΈ°λ₯Ό μ΄μνμ¬ μ μ μ§κ΄νκ² λλ κ²μ ν λ§μ€λ μΈκ° ꡬμμΌλ‘ 보μλ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄λ κ² ν λ§μ€λ μ νμ μΈ λ
Όμμ κ΄ν μ² νμ μΈ ν λλ₯Ό λ§λ ¨νλ €λ λ
Έλ ₯ μμμ νλμ μΈκ²© λ
Όμμλ μ μ©λ μ μλ λλ¨ν νλΆνκ³ κ· νμ‘ν μΈκ²© κ°λ
μ μ μ¬ν΄ μ€ μ μμλ κ²μ΄λ€.Thomas Aquinas (1224/5ο½1274) proves the incorruptibility of the soul, which has its origin in ancient Greek thought, using the
subsistence of the soul and other arguments. He also insists, however, that for the perfection of the human person, the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is indispensable.
Aquinass explanation has three stages: β a composite of the soul and the body in this world, β‘ a separated soul in the next life,
and β’ a composite of the soul and the body on the last day. There are very different opinions about how these stages are related to each other. Corresponding to his view that a human being is a composite of a soul and a body, Aquinas holds that a separated
soul (β‘) is neither a human being nor a human person in a strict sense. However, we dont need to interpret this assertion as the
persistence of the person is totally interrupted. Also, Aquinass expression that the separated soul is against nature must be interpreted not to mean that it cannot take any action but instead that it cannot fulfill the nature of a human being perfectly. Aquinas tries to philosophically demonstrate the incorruptibility of the soul using Aristotelian terms in a different manner than Platonism. But his explanation for the resurrection of the body must not be
understood as a philosophical argument, but as the discovery of a metaphysical fundamental that can rationally explain the things accepted by faith, or as an argument against scholars who try to demonstrate content contrary to the Christian faith. The reason that Aquinas is not satisfied with arguing philosophically on β and β‘, and instead focuses on giving an account of β’, is that he is interested in the salvation of human beings. According to him, salvation is completed when a human person who has individuality, incommunicability, and relations with the world comes to experience
a beatific vision that results in self-transcendence. In his efforts to seek a philosophical foundation for the Christian doctrine, he was able to present to us the plentiful and well-balanced concept of the person (persona), which we can still use in modern discussions.λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ 2010λ
λ κ°ν¨λ¦λνκ΅ κ΅λΉμ°κ΅¬λΉμ μ§μμΌλ‘ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ‘μ
The Unity of Human Soul and Body and its Importance for Understanding the Human Person : in the Works of Thomas Aquinas
'μΈκ²©κ³Ό μνΌκ³Ό μ‘체μ ν΅μΌμ±μ΄λ λ μ£Όμ λ€μ μΈκ°μ μ΄ν΄ν
λ λ° λ§€μ° μ€μνμ§λ§ κ·Έ μ°κ΄μ±μ΄ μΆ©λΆν μ£Όλͺ©λ°μ§ λͺ»νλ€. λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμ
λ ν λ§μ€ μν΄λμ€μ λμ΄κ΅λλμ μ IIκΆμ ν
μ€νΈλ€μ μ€μ¬μΌλ‘ μ‘체
μ μνΌμ ν©μΌμ λν κ·Έμ μ£Όμ₯λ€μ λΆμν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ ν λ§μ€κ° μΈκ²© κ°λ
κ³Ό μ΄λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄μ λλ¬νκ³ μ νλ λͺ©νλ₯Ό νꡬνκ³ μ νλ€. μ§μ±μ μνΌκ³Ό
μ‘체μ ν©μΌμ λ°λνλ νλΌν€μ£Όμμλ€μ μ
μ₯κ³Ό μΈκ°μκ² λ€μμ μ€μ²΄μ
νμμ΄ μλ€λ μ΄λ‘ μ λ
Όλ°νλ κ³Όμ μ λ€λ£¬ ν, ν λ§μ€κ° μμ μ μ
μ₯μ
μ κ·Ήμ μΌλ‘ νλͺ
νλ λͺ
μ λ€, μ¦ μ§μ±μ μνΌμ μΈκ°μ μ μΌν μ€μ²΄μ ν
μμ΄λ©° μΈκ° μνΌμ μ§μ±μ μ€μ²΄μ΄λ©΄μλ μ‘체μ νμμ΄λΌλ μ£Όμ₯λ€μ
κ²ν νλ€. μ΄λ₯Ό ν΅ν΄μ μνΌκ³Ό μ‘체μ ν΅ν©μ΄ μκ²°λ μ 체λΌκ³ κ·μ λ μΈ
κ° μΈκ²©μ μν νμ 쑰건μ΄λ©°, μΈκ° λ³Έμ±μ λ°λ₯Έ κ²μ΄λΌλ μ¬μ€μ΄ λ°νμ§
λ€. ν λ§μ€λ μ‘체μ λν΄μ κΈμ μ μΌλ‘ νκ°νλ©΄μλ μΈκ° μνΌμ λ¬Όμ§μ
μ€μ²΄μ λΆλ¦¬λ μ€μ²΄ μ¬μ΄μ 'μ§ν'μ΄λΌκ³ κ·μ ν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ μ‘체μ λν΄ μ§λμΉ
κ³Όμνκ°λ κ³Όλνκ°λ₯Ό λͺ¨λ μ§μνλ€. μ΄λ¬ν μ¬μ€λ€μ ν λ§μ€κ° μ£Όμ₯ν
λ ν΅ν©μ μΈ μΈκ²©κ΄μ λν μ νν κ°μΉλ₯Ό νκ°νκΈ° μν νμ μ°κ΅¬λ€μ
μν κΈ°μ΄κ° λ κ²μΌλ‘ κΈ°λνλ€. The conception of person as a unity of soul and body is very
important for understanding humanity. However, the relationship
between the two parts has attracted little attention or scholarly
debate. This paper provides a textual analysis of Book II, Summa
contra Gentiles in which Thomas Aquinas provides us with his
understanding of the human person as the unity of soul and
body. Aquinas first refutes Platos position, who denies the
essential union of the intellective soul with the body and posits that
in man there are many substantial forms. After a careful analysis
and interpretation of Aquinass positions, this paper will critically
reflect on his theses which posits the intellective soul as being a
unique substantial form of man and the human soul as being
both the intellectual substance and form of the body. This study
seeks to demonstrate the unity of soul and body as a necessary
condition for the person to attain his whole, complete human nature.
Aquinas regards the body affirmatively and describes the human soul as the borderline between corporeal and separate substances,
preventing the body from being both under-and overestimated. This
study seeks to provide a clarification but also an appraisal of the
true value of Aquinass synthetic treatment of the human person
νΉμ΄ μλλ νμν νΈλ―ΈλΆ λ°©μ μμ μ΅μμλμ§ ν΄μ μλμ§ μ§μ€μ μ μμΉ
Maste
κ΄κ°μ©μμ μ μ λΆλ°°λ₯Ό μν νΌμ§λμ‘° PID μ μ΄κΈ°μ μλ¬Έ μλνμ κ΄ν μ°κ΅¬
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(μμ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :λ곡νκ³Ό λμ
ν λͺ© μ 곡,2001.Maste
The Distinction between a "signified thing" and a "mode of signifying" in works of Thomas Aquinas
ν λ§μ€ μν΄λμ€κ° μ€μΈ μΈμ΄μ² νμΌλ‘λΆν° μμ©νμ¬ νμ©ν μ£Όμ
κ°λ
μ€μ νλκ° μλ―Έλ λμ(res significata)κ³Ό μλ―Έμ μν(modus
significandi)μ λν ꡬλΆμ΄λ€. μ΄ κ΅¬λΆμ ν λ§μ€μ μ νλμ μ λΉλ‘―ν
λ€μν μνλ€μμ λ§€μ° μμ£Ό μ¬μ©λκ³ μλ€. κ·Έλ μ§λ§ μ§λ μΈκΈ° μ€λ° μ΄ν
κΈμλλ‘ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ§ μ€μΈ μΈμ΄μ² νμ μ§μ€μ μΈ μ°κ΅¬ μ΄μ μλ μλ―Έμ μν
κ°λ
μ΄ μ€μΈ λ¬Έλ²μ΄λ‘ μ μ μ μ μ΄λ£¨λ μ λͺ
ν μ¬λ³μ λ¬Έλ²ν(Grammatica
speculativa)μ ν΅μ¬κ°λ
μ΄λΌλ μ¬μ€μ΄ μΆ©λΆν μλ €μ§μ§ μμλ€. μ΄λ¬ν λ°°
κ²½μ λν λ¬΄μ§ λλ¬Έμ λ§μ ν λ§μ€ μ² νμ μ λ¬Έκ°λ€μ‘°μ°¨ κ΄λ ¨ ν
μ€νΈμ
λν μλͺ»λ ν΄μμ λ΄λκΈ°λ νλ€. λ°λΌμ λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμλ μ°μ μ΄ κ°λ
λ€
μ΄ μΈμ΄ μ² νλΆμΌμμ μ΄λ€ λ°©μμΌλ‘ μ¬μ©λμμΌλ©°, ν λ§μ€κ° μ΄λ₯Ό μ΄λ€
λ§₯λ½μμ μ΄λ€ λ°©μμΌλ‘ μ¬μ©νλκ°λ₯Ό μ€λͺ
νμλ€. λ λμκ° ν λ§μ€κ° μ΄
κ°λ
μ μ΄λλ‘λΆν° μμ©νλκ°? νλ μ§λ¬Έμ μ§μ€μ μΌλ‘ κ³ μ°°νλ€. ν λ§μ€
μ ν
μ€νΈμ κ΄λ ¨ μμ λ€μ λν λΉκ΅λ₯Ό λ°νμΌλ‘ ν λ§μ€κ° μλ―Έμ μν
λ κ°λ
μ μ§μ μ μΌλ‘ λ¬Έλ²νμλ€λ‘λΆν°κ° μλλΌ, λΉμ μΈλ¬ΈνλΆμμ κ°
μ₯ ν° λΉμ€μ μ°¨μ§νλ λ
Όλ¦¬ν μμ
μΌλ‘λΆν° μμ©νλ€λ κ·Όκ±°λ₯Ό μ μνλ€.λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ 2007λ
λ κ°ν¨λ¦λνκ΅ κ΅λΉμ°κ΅¬λΉμ μ§μμΌλ‘ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ‘
The Distinction Between a Signified Thing and a Mode of Signifying and the Concept of Analogy
λ² ν λ§μ€ μν΄λμ€κ° μ€μΈ μΈμ΄μ² νμΌλ‘λΆν° μμ©νμ¬ νμ©ν μ£Όμ λꡬ μ€μ νλκ° μλ―Έλ λμ(res significata)κ³Ό μλ―Έμ μν(modus significandi)μ λν ꡬλΆ(μ΄ν RS-MS ꡬλΆμΌλ‘ μ½μΉ)κ³Ό μ λΉ(analogia) κ°λ
μ΄λ€. μ΄ λꡬλ€μ ν λ§μ€μ γμ νλμ γμ λΉλ‘―ν λ€μν μνλ€μμ λ§€μ° μμ£Ό μ¬μ©λκ³ μλ€. κ·Έλ°λ° νλ ν΄μκ°λ€ μ¬μ΄μμ ν λ§μ€κ° μ¬μ©νλ RS-MS ꡬλΆκ³Ό μΌμμ± λ° λ€μμ±κ³Ό ꡬλ³λλ μ λΉ κ°λ
μ¬μ΄μλ μ΄λ€ κ΄κ³μ μλκ°?(A) νλ μ§λ¬Έμ λν λ΅λ³μμ ν° κ²¬ν΄μ°¨κ° λνλκ³ μλ€. ν λ§μ€ μ² νμ μ λ¬Έκ°λ‘ μΈμ λ°λ νμλ€μ λΉλ‘―νμ¬ λΉκ΅μ μ΅κ·Όμ μ΄ μ£Όμ λ€μ λ€λ£¨μλ μ°κ΅¬μλ€μ‘°μ°¨λ μ€μΈ μΈμ΄μ² ν μ°κ΅¬μμ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ§ μ΅κ·Όμ μ°κ΅¬λ€μ μμ§ λͺ»νκΈ° λλ¬Έμ ν
μ€νΈ μ체μ μμ¬μ λ°°κ²½μ λΆν©νμ§ μλ λ°μλ€μ΄κΈ° νλ ν΄μμ λ΄ λμλ€. λ°λΌμ λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμλ ν λ§μ€μ μ£Όμ ν
μ€νΈ(I Sent 22, 1, 2; STh I, 13, 1-6 λ±)λ€μ λν λΆμκ³Ό μ΄μ λν λ€μν ν΄μλ€μ λΉνμ μΌλ‘ κ²ν ν¨μΌλ‘μ¨ RS-MS ꡬλΆκ³Ό μ λΉ κ°λ
μ κ΄κ³λ₯Ό νμ μ§κ³ μ μλνλ€. λ
Όλ¬Έμ μμΈν λΆμμ ν΅ν΄ μλ―Έμ μνμ κ΄λ ¨λ μ°¨μμμ λ³νκ° μΌμ΄λ κ²½μ°μλ λλ°μ λ―Έ(consignificatio)μ μ°¨μμμλ§ λ³νκ° μΌμ΄λ λΏ, κ·Έ κ·Όμμ μΈ μλ―Έλ λ³ννμ§ μλλ€λ μ¬μ€μ΄ λ°νμ‘λ€. κ²°κ³Όμ μΌλ‘ μ μ°¨μ οΌλ΄μ§οΌνμ°¨μ οΌμλ―Έμ§μλΌκ³ μ€λͺ
λλ μ λΉκ° κ·Όλ³Έμ μλ―Έ λλ μλ―Έλ΄μ©μ λ³νμ μκ΄κ΄κ³μ μ£Όλͺ©νλ€λ©΄ RS-MS ꡬλΆμ ννΈμΌλ‘ μ‘΄μ¬λ‘ μ μΈ μ°¨μμμμ μμ μ±μ΄λ μ΄μ μλ°λλ μ‘΄μ¬μ μνμ, λ€λ₯Έ ννΈμΌλ‘ μΈκ°μ μΈμμ μνμ μ΄μ μμ‘΄νκ³ μλ μλ―Έμ μν μ¬μ΄μ κ΄κ³λ₯Ό λ€λ£¬λ€λ κ²μ΄ λλ¬λ¬λ€. λ°λΌμ RS-MS ꡬλΆκ³Ό μ λΉκ°λ
μ νλκ° λ€λ₯Έ νμͺ½μΌλ‘ νμλκ±°λ λμΌμλ μ μλ κ²μ΄ μλλΌ, κ°κ° κ³ μ ν μν μ κ°μ§κ³ μ μ λν μ¬λ°λ₯Έ μ§μ κ°λ₯μ±μ μ°ΎκΈ° μν λμμλ λ
Έλ ₯μ μ¬μ©λμλ λꡬλ€μ΄μλ κ²μ΄λ€.
The main tools that Thomas Aquinas accepted from medieval language philosophy are the distinction between a signified thing (res significata) and a mode of signifying (modus significandi) (=RS-MS-distinction) and the concept of analogy. He frequently used these tools in his works, for example, Summa Theologiae. Among modern scholars there are significant differences in their answers to the question, What is the
relation between the RS-MS-distinction and the concept of analogy as proposed by Thomas Aquinas? Thomism experts and recent scholars
dealing with these themes were unaware of the latest research in medieval language philosophy, and consequently some Thomists misinterpreted the texts of Thomas. Therefore, in this paper I critically analyze the main texts of Thomas (I Sent 22,1,2; STh I,13,1-6 etc.) and investigate the various interpretations of these texts. I also examine the relation between the RS-MS-distinction and the concept of analogy. Through analysis I show that in the case of changing the mode of signifying the principal meaning of a word is not changed, but only in the dimension of
consignification does the change occur. Consequently, if the analogy that is per-prius-et-posterius-signification draws attention to the change of the principal meaning, the RS-MS-distinction deals with the relation between perfection in the ontological dimension or mode of being and
the human mode of understanding and the following mode of signifying. Accordingly, the RS-MS-distinction and the concept of
analogy should be treated as distinct concepts as each has its proper role as a tool used in the ceaseless efforts to make correct statements about God.λ³Έ μ°κ΅¬λ 2009λ
λ κ°ν¨λ¦λνκ΅ κ΅λΉμ°κ΅¬λΉμ μ§μμΌλ‘ μ΄λ£¨μ΄μ‘μ