The Horak debate was a Neo-Confucian polemic among Confucian

scholars of Joseon in the eighteenth century. In the Joseon era, Neo-

Confucianism was formed, developed, and matured through three
waves of debates lasting for an extended period of time: the Four-
Seven (sadan chiljeong) debate in the sixteenth century, the Horak
(Chungcheong region versus Seoul) debate in the eighteenth century,
and the Theory of Mind (simseol) debate in the nineteenth century.
These debates led to the construction of a new theory, enabling the
development of Korean Neo-Confucianism in distinction from its Chi-
nese counterpart, the Zhu Xi school of thought.
In the term Horak, Ho denotes the Chungcheong region and
Rak denotes Seoul, reflecting literally the nature of the debate,
which was a dispute between scholars residing in Chungcheong region
versus those living in Seoul. The Giho School (Gyeonggi-do and
Chungcheong-do provinces), which succeeded Yi Is academic lin-
eage, was divided in 1683 into the Noron (Old Doctrine) faction,
headed by Song Si-yeol, and the Soron (Young Doctrine) faction, cen-
tered around Yun Jeung. Later, Song Si-yeols teachings were inherit-
ed by Kim Chang-hyeop in Seoul and Kwon Sang-ha in Chungcheong,
who developed Nak-ron (Seoul theory) and Ho-ron (Chungcheong
theory), respectively.
What made scholars belonging to the same Noron faction engage
The Horak Debate in Eighteenth-Century
Joseon
CHOI Young-Jin
On this topic
6 KOREA JOURNAL / SPRING 2011
in such a fierce debate? The demise of the Ming dynasty in China in
1645 led to its replacement by the Qing dynasty. In Japan, the Edo
Shogun regime was set up in 1603. In accordance with such changes
of immense magnitudes occurring in Northeast Asia, Korea also
underwent changes of similar scales. The Japanese invasions of
Korea (1592-1598) caused the shift of power from the meritorious
elites (hungu ]}), founders of the Joseon dynasty and dominant
political power, to the Neo-Confucian literati (sarim |), which
remained more faithful to the tenets of Neo-Confucianism. In terms
of the economy, rising land productivity spread the notion of proper-
ty ownership. As witnessed in the emergence of the idea of national
reconstruction under the widely supported slogan Lets Rebuild the
Nation, seventeenth-century Joseon experienced enormous structur-
al changes in many areas of society. In response to the changes
occurring in Northeast Asia, Joseon intellectuals had no option but to
seek a new social paradigm. They did so by resorting to Korean Neo-
Confucianism, which was established by Yi Hwang and Yi I in the six-
teenth century. In addition, some other Confucian schools of thought
were developed in the seventeenth century, such as the Wang Yang-
ming School and Silhak (Practical Learning), leading to diversification
within the academic community.
The academic community faced a geographic division into groups
in the Seoul and vicinity areas versus ones in the provinces in the eigh-
teenth century, the former more strongly influencing the intellectual
scene. Inevitably, geographic reformation engendered differences in
their scholastic preferences, political stances, and most particularly,
views on the Manchu tribe, the founders of Qing China who Joseon
scholars once denounced as barbarians (You 1992, 15-16). This might
have been a factor that can explain why scholars in Seoul and
Chungcheong came to develop arguments against each other despite
their common affiliation with Noron. The problems implicated in the
Neo-Confucian tenets established by Zhu Xi also contributed to this
conflict. Zhu Xi built a theoretical scheme, which offered systematic
explanations for human mind, society, and nature based on the doc-
trines of li ; (principle) and qi _ (material force), but his writ-
7 The Horak Debate in Eighteenth-Century Joseon
ings were strewn with many contradictory arguments. These prob-
lems surfaced in the milieu of the era and scholars of the two factions
approached them from different angles, having intense academic dis-
cussions in the course of the debate. The dispute eventually caused
the fission of Noron into Seoul-based Nak-ron and Chungcheong-
based Ho-ron. Nak-ron scholars dominated the political scene and
their arguments were linked to Silhak of the Northern Learning Sec-
tion. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Giho School was formed,
combining the conflicting arguments of Ho-ron and Nak-ron and cre-
ating a new Neo-Confucian theory.
It was the dispute between Han Won-jin (pen name: Namdang,
1682-1751), a disciple of Kwon Sang-ha, and Yi Gan (pen name:
Oeam, 1677-1727) that caused the division of Noron. After that, Han
Won-jins assertions formed the basis of Ho-ron, while Yi Gans
formed the core of Nak-ron with the support of Seoul-based scholars.
1
1. Was Yi Gan a scholar of Ho-ron (Chungcheong theory) or Nak-ron (Seoul theory)?
There is no disagreement among modern-day scholars that Han Won-jin was a
staunch advocate of Ho-ron, but critical views are being cast against the existing
notion that Yi Gan, Hans adversary, was a scholar of Nak-ron. Some scholars are
even skeptical of calling the debate the Horak debate. The logic of the criticism
is that Yi Gan, like Han Won-jin, resided in the Chungcheong region and was a
disciple of Kwon Sang-ha (1641-1721), a leading figure of Ho-ron (Moon 2006,
234-235). However, ones place of residence cannot be an absolute criterion of
ones doctrinal classification, as evidenced by the example of scholar Yi Ik; though
he created a doctrinal faction while residing in the Giho area (Gyeonggi-do and
Chungcheong-do provinces), he cannot be categorized as a scholar of the Giho
School. Scholars should be classified according to the content of their ideas and
theories. Even if Yi Gan cannot be classified as a member of the Nakhakpa (Seoul
Theory Faction) because he did not physically belong to the Nakhak circle, it can-
not be denied that his theory belongs to Nak-ron. This is affirmed in the following
accounts in Jeongjo sillok (Annals of King Jeongjo), vol. 52, 15th day of the tenth
lunar month, the 23rd year of King Jeongjos reign: Early on, Han Won-jin formu-
lated the notion that the unaroused mind already has temperament in it and
human beings and other beings are different in terms of the five constant virtues.
This conception is different from what is held by Kim Chang-heup, Yi Jae, and Yi
Gan, and the disciples criticize each other. This created the appellations Hohak
(Chungcheong thought) and Nakhak (Seoul thought). In this record, Yi Gan is
regarded as endorsing the same arguments as Kim Chang-heup and Yi Jae, who
are representative figures of the Nakhak group.
8 KOREA JOURNAL / SPRING 2011
The debate between Han and Yi can be divided into the following
three phases:
1. Preliminary Phase: In 1705-1706, Han Won-jin exchanged
views with fellow scholars Han Hong-jo and Choe Jing-hu through
letters, mainly regarding the points he raised in his papers released in
1705, Sidongji seol (Thesis on the Endowment of the Same Intent)
and Insim dosim seol (Thesis on Human Mind and Moral Mind). In
the autumn of 1706, Han Won-jin summarized the discussions and
his own ideas to produce another paper titled Bonyeonji seong gijilji
seong seol (Thesis on Original Nature and Temperamental Nature).
Choe Jing-hu wrote letters to Han Won-jin in the autumn of 1707 and
to Choe in 1708 to exchange views on this topic. Han also sent letters
to his master Kwon Sang-ha elaborating his views on the issues
raised in the discussions. He advocated the idea that nature has three
levels. Han Won-jin had a debate with Han Hong-jo in the early part
of 1709.
2. Development Phase: In January 1709, Han Hong-jo visited Yi
Gan and presented him with the letters exchanged between Han
Hong-jo and Han Won-jin in the preliminary stage. Yi Gan sent Choe
Jing-hu a letter articulating his criticisms of Han Won-jins arguments
in the following month, to which Han Won-jin sent Choe Jing-hu a
letter refuting those criticisms in March. In April, Han Won-jin and Yi
Gan met face-to-face at Hansansa temple in Boryeong, Chungcheong-
nam-do province, in a meeting arranged by Choe Jing-hu and Han
Hong-jo; many scholars attended their week-long discussion. Debates
between Han Won-jin and Yi Gan continued until 1713.
3. Conclusion Phase: From 1713 to 1715, Yi Gan released his
arguments in Itonggiguk byeon (Thesis on the Universality of LI
and the Specificity of Qi), Mibal yuseonak byeon (Thesis on the
Presence of Good and Evil in Unarousedness), Mibal byeon (Thesis
on Unarousedness), and Osang byeon (Thesis on the Five Constant
Virtues). Between 1715 and 1716, Han Won-jin released refutations
to Yis arguments in Uidap igonggeo (My Reply to Sir Yi in Refuta-
tion). In 1719, Yi Gan published Mibal byeon huseol (Postscript to
the Thesis on Unarousedness), his final critique of Han Won-jin. In
9 The Horak Debate in Eighteenth-Century Joseon
1724, Han Won-jin read materials on the debate between Yi Gan and
Kwon Sang-ha and wrote a critique of Yi Gan on behalf of Kwon
Sang-ha, entitled Igongeo sangsa munseo byeon (Questions to Sir
Yi on Behalf of My Master).
2
The core questions of their disputes are as follows: 1) How
should unarousedness, the state of mind yet to be aroused, be
defined?; 2) Do wise people and ordinary people have the same
nature?; and 3) Do human beings and other things (particularly,
other animals) have the same nature?
The term unarousedness appears for the first time in Chapter 1
of Zhongyong (Doctrine of the Mean):
Moderation refers to the state [of mind] before emotions such as
joy, anger, sorrow and pleasure are aroused, while harmony
refers to the state where emotions are aroused but under control.
Moderation is the great foundation of the universe and harmony is
the general principle of the universe. If both moderation and har-
mony are achieved, the universe has its proper place and all things
are nurtured.
Before the mind is aroused, it is not subject to any emotions such as
joy, anger, sorrow, or pleasure and thus is in equilibrium. Modera-
tion is the state of mind that is bent neither one way nor another,
or none is too much or too little or the state of balance. In Confu-
cianism, moderation is considered as the highest virtue of all and is
referred to as the great foundation of the universe.
The discourse on unarousedness began among disciples of Kwon
Sang-ha, including Han Won-jin, Choe Jing-hu, and Han Hong-jo,
centered on the main question of does temperamental nature exist
in the state of unarosedness? Choe Jing-hu and Han Hong-jo argued
that, in an unaroused state of mind, original nature exists and tem-
peramental nature does not; only when original is aroused, can tem-
peramental nature come to exist. Han Won-jin contradicted this idea
2. Refer to Jeon (1999).
by saying that temperamental nature exists even in an unaroused
mind. According to Han, qi is present even in an unaroused mind
albeit it may not be in operation because unarousedness and
arousedness are both operations of mind and mind is qi.
Han Won-jin and Yi Gan shared the view that unarousedness
meant a state or a point in time where qi is yet to operate, in which
qi is purely good because it is not operating. Yi Gan stressed that qi
in an unaroused state is whole, natural, pure, and genuine, and can
be nothing but good, whereas Han Won-jin viewed that, in un-
arousedness, qi already had qualities of purity, impurity, innocence,
and indecency, or toughness, gentleness, good and evil. These con-
flicting views on the goodness of the state of unarousedness compose
the fundamental difference between the two scholars.
For Yi Gan, qi in unarousedness was original qi, which is pure,
clear, perfect, and innocent, equal between wise and ordinary peo-
ple. In an unaroused state, the mind of the wise and that of the mass
are the same. In contrast, Han Won-jin argued that in unarousedness,
ones real character can be either beautiful or ugly, and thus the
mind of highly cultivated wise people and that of ordinary people
cannot be identical even before arousal. The two scholars disagree-
ment regarding the state of unarousedness led to their different views
on whether wise people and ordinary people have the same mind.
While this discussion concerned the identity of or differences
between different groups of human beings, Yi and Han were also
engaged in another discourse surrounding the issue of whether
human beings and other beings (mainly animals) have the same
nature. Zhu Xi divided human nature into original nature and tem-
peramental nature. Original nature is li itself and is pure and good,
while temperamental nature differs in goodness depending on the
degree of the purity of disposition. Every being, whether human or
non-human, possesses identical original nature but different tempera-
mental natures. Endorsing this position, Yi Gan maintained that all
beings innately possessed the five constant virtues of benevolence,
righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and sincerity, and that the Virtues
were manifested the same way in everyone. Meanwhile, Han Won-jin
10 KOREA JOURNAL / SPRING 2011
posited two types of original nature into one that transcends disposi-
tion and the other as influenced by disposition. In the former case, all
beings innately had the five constant values, so they had the same
nature; in the latter case, only humans innately had all of the five
constant virtues and other beings only had some, so they had differ-
ent natures. Further, he maintained that the second type was the real
nature, for otherwise he would have lost the logical ground on which
to argue the essential differences between humans and other beings.
Yis and Hans views on temperamental nature did not differ much
from each other.
The dispute between Han and Yi over such issues became a pop-
ular topic of academic discourse of the time and eventually devel-
oped into a debate between scholars in Chungcheong and Seoul
named the Horak debate. Nak-ron scholars claimed the fundamental
sameness of human or non-human beings or of the self and the
Other, whereas Ho-ron advocated the essential differences between
them. From the stance of Noron (Old Doctrine), which dominated
politics at that time, the Others included their political adversaries
Namin (Southerners), Soron (Young Doctrine), and the Qing dynasty
whose founders were viewed as barbarians that should be over-
thrown for their invasion of Korea in the seventeenth century. In
addition, the newly emerging jungin (literally, middle people) class
was included in the Other, which the Noron could not disregard. Ho-
ron reinforced its exclusive position by offering the logic of distinc-
tion based on the differences between the self and Others. In con-
trast, Nak-ron accepted the Others and opted for a more flexible
approach by proposing the principle of integration based on the
sameness of the self and the Other. The Horak debate was the great-
est academic polemic of the Joseon period, in which the discussions
about the principles of distinction and integrationpart of the funda-
mental modes of thinking in philosophywere ignited in light of the
circumstances of the era.
This issue of the Korea Journal includes four papers related to
the Horak debate. The four papers each provide new perspectives on
the Horak debate by approaching the topic from original and unique
11 The Horak Debate in Eighteenth-Century Joseon
perspectives. The first paper by Lee Kyungku provides a general
overview of the history of the Horak debate. However, rather than
focusing on the major figures who dominated development of the
debate, Lee focuses on analyzing these contributing scholars philo-
sophical ideas in the context of their contemporary political back-
grounds. His paper contributes to the understanding of the Horak
debate and the philosophical foundations of the two contending par-
ties, Ho-ron and Nak-ron.
Cho Sung-sans paper focuses on Nak-ron principles. Cho dis-
cusses the development of Nak-ron ideas as a reaction to the then
popular trend of classic revivalism (bokgojuui ___). Nak-rons
rejection of classic revivalist ideas led to an emphasis on the ideas of
presentness and universality. The author examines how these ideas
influenced the literature and art produced by scholars and artists who
identified with Nak-ron. His paper ends with an analysis of why fac-
tors such as Nak-ron ideas and the popularity of classic revivalism
led to the eventual decline of the Horak debate.
In the third paper, Hong Jung Geun delves into one of the prima-
ry topics of the Horak debate over the similarity or differences
between the morality of humans and animals (inmulseong dongi ron
|_|,_). The main points of Ho-ron and Nak-ron opinions and
the development of each position are explained in detail. Hong
implies the modern significance of the Horak debate by relating the
debate over human versus animal morality to modern scientific stud-
ies on the moral or emotional behaviors of animals.
Finally, Lee Cheon Sungs paper explores the topic of mibal _,
defined as the state before external entities stimulate and influence
human thoughts and emotions. At the center of this discussion is the
concept of the mind-heart. Ho-ron and Nak-ron scholars interpreted
differently the definitive qualities of the mind-heart and the nature of
the mind-heart prior to external stimulation. Lee used the ideas of
Han Won-jin and Yi Gan, representative scholars of Ho-ron and Nak-
ron, respectively, to illustrate the ideological differences surrounding
the notion of the mind-heart. Discussions on the mibal state served
as an important foundation upon which the Horak debate and the
12 KOREA JOURNAL / SPRING 2011
13 The Horak Debate in Eighteenth-Century Joseon
numerous topics within emerged.
The four papers in this issue each approach the Horak debate in
different ways and provide significant contributions to furthering our
understanding of this historic academic exchange. As the topics dis-
cussed in the Horak debate are important to the development of East
Asian philosophy and relate to topics of modern academic studies in
interdisciplinary ways, it will be important to continue to conduct
research to explore facets of the Horak debate that have yet to be stud-
ied. The original approaches to the topic taken by the featured papers
are at once informative and thought provoking; it is my hope that
this issue of the Korea Journal will serve as a catalyst to many more
fruitful and worthwhile discussions.
REFERENCES
Jun, In-Shik. 1999. Yi Gan-gwa Han Won-jin-ui mibal osang nonbyeon
yeongu (A Study of the Discourse on Unarousedness and Five Constant
Virtues between Yi Gan and Han Won-jin). PhD diss., The Academy of
Korean Studies.
Moon, Suk-yoon. 2006. Horak nonjaeng hyeongseong-gwa jeongae (The For-
mation and Development of the Horak Debate). Seoul: Dong-gwa Seo.
You, Bong-Hak. 1992. 18-19 segi yeonam ilpa bukhak sasang-ui yeongu
(An Examination of Northern Learning of Yeonam Bak Ji-won and His
Followers of the 18-19th Century). PhD diss., Seoul National University.