Rethinking the Foundation and Development of “East Asian Silhak”: With a Focus on the Establishment of Its Concept and Periodic Classification

I. Introduction: Justifying the Concept of “East Asian Silhak”

The Korean word silhak 實學 was originally a common noun meaning “genuine learning,” but in the seventeenth and eighteenth century it became the historical proper noun “Silhak (Practical Learning)” referring to the specific school of learning focused on “meeting desperate public needs and solving social problems caused by the Imjin War (Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592) and the Byeongja War (Qing Invasion of Korea in 1636) by improving various systems such as politics, economy, religion, and culture” (Lee 1999, 806). That is, Korean Silhak can be said to refer to the strengthened Confucian statecraft, which actively promoted the improvement of social systems by prioritizing actions in reality in the late Joseon dynasty of Korea.

Given the historical distinctiveness seen in such definition as “Korean Silhak,” it would be feasible to conceive “East Asian Silhak 東亞實學 (East Asian Practical Learning)” as a concept encompassing the academic trends of China and Japan in the same period and to organize its contents. In other words, considering that the proper noun “Silhak” was born out of the specific social context of Korea in the late Joseon dynasty, it would be possible to draw up the concept of “East Asian Silhak” only when identifying certain similarities and consistencies among the thoughts and ideas of China, Japan, and Korea in the period from the seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries, going beyond a simple integration of them based on regional proximity. In this regard, a brief historical background would be helpful. In the early to mid-seventeenth century, a sequence of events, which can be called “historical transitions,” occurred in the three East Asian countries. These included the outbreak of the Imjin War in 1592 and the Byeongja War in 1636 in Korea, the fall of the Ming dynasty and the establishment of the Qing dynasty in 1644 in China, and the beginning of the Edo Shogunate in 1603 in Japan. They allowed for the emergence of new trends even in the Confucian studies of the three countries, which put more emphasis on social actions and reform than on the metaphysical theory on the nature of the heart-mind (simseong 心性). As such, these new academic trends contributed to strengthening the Confucian statecraft, and eventually gave shape to Silhak 實學 (“Practical Learning”) in Korea, Qixue 氣學 (Learning of Vital Forces) in China, and Kogaku 古學 (“Ancient Learning”) in Japan. This examination provides a basis for justifying the establishment of the concept of “East Asian Silhak” by showing the changes in the focus of Confucian studies in East Asia in the seventeenth to eighteenth century, which occurred in the direction of strengthening the Confucian statecraft.

However, when it comes to whether the concept of “East Asian Silhak” makes sense even for the period of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the following question arises: if the concept could be justified based on the three East Asian countries’ common focus on the strengthening of the Confucian statecraft in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, can the similar academic trends common to the three countries be found in the nineteenth to twentieth centuries? In addition, as mentioned above, considering that Silhak was established in Korea as an academic term referring to the Confucian studies emphasizing social reform in reality in the late Joseon dynasty, it leads to another question: whether the academic trends similar to Korean Silhak observed in China and Japan in the nineteenth and twentieth century as well as in the current times can be placed on the same line with Silhak, which is characterized by “reinforcement of Confucian statecraft in the late Joseon dynasty.”

Based on the above questions, this article attempts to shed light on the creation and development of the academic trends similar to Korean Silhak in East Asia, mainly from a macroscopic perspective. With this purpose, first, the creation and characteristics of Silhak trends in Korea, China, and Japan in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will be briefly reviewed, and then several problems of the studies conducted on East Asian Silhak in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries will be analyzed and discussed. Lastly, this article argues that the conception of “East Asian New Silhak 東亞新實學 (East Asian New Practical Learning)” in the twenty-first century should start from the establishment of the simultaneous relationship between Zhuzi studies of Neo-Confucianism and Silhak based on the original Confucian ideal of neisheng waiwang 內聖外王 (“inner sage and outer king”).

II. Changes in East Asian Silhak in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and in Korean Silhak in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

As mentioned above, entering the seventeenth century, China, Japan, and Korea experienced historical and political upheavals “separately but simultaneously.” Accordingly, in the thoughts and studies of the three East Asian countries, significant changes occurred, such as the emergence of a new ideological trend, which emphasized concrete actions in the real world and sought to improve life and society through them, putting greater emphasis on practical issues rather than theories.

First, in Korea, this trend gradually became more prevalent after the Imjin War in 1592 and the Byeongja War in 1636, and by the eighteenth century, it was established as a new school of thought known as "Silhak of the late Joseon dynasty." This school of thought, whose most notable representatives were Yu Hyeong-won 柳馨遠 (1622–1673), Lee Ik 李瀷 (1681–1763), and Jeong Yak-yong 丁若鏞 (1762–1836), criticized the situation where so much focus was placed on theoretical interpretations of Zhuzi studies that practical aspects of the world were relatively neglected, and sought to strengthen the doctrine of governance with which to govern the country and improve people's livelihood.

In the case of China, as Wang Yangming’s Xinxue 心學 (Learning of the Heart-Mind) leaned towards obsession with Chan texts and words—which was often labeled “crazy Chan” (kuangchan 狂禪)—at the end of the Ming dynasty, empty discourses on the heart-mind became more prevalent in the academia as well as in the society. In response to this, voices were raised criticizing this trend lacking any will for “governing the state and benefiting the people” (jingshi jimin 經世濟民; gyeonse jemin in Korean). In the early Qing dynasty, the tone of this criticism was intensified, with more emphasis placed on the empirical examination of human traits and emotions and the improvement of reality rather than on abstract metaphysical discourses. This ideological trend led to the birth of Qixue 氣學 (“Learning of Vital Forces”) in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, whose most prominent representatives were Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲 (1610–1695), Yan Yuan 顔元 (1635–1704), and Dai Zhen 戴震 (1724–1777).

A similar academic trend developed around the seventeenth century during the Edo period (1603–1867) of Japan, and was eventually shaped into a new school of thought called Kogaku 古學 (Ancient Learning), which put more emphasis on empirical knowledge and practices in reality than on the Confucian discourses on the Way of Heaven or the nature of the heart-mind. Its representative scholars include Ito Jinsai 伊藤仁齋 (1627–1705), Ogyu Sorai 荻生徂徠 (1666–1728), and Dazai Shundai 太宰春台 (1680–1747). They argued that Zhuzi studies misinterpreted the true tenets of Confucianism and therefore that the practical application of Confucian thoughts should be directly based on the teachings Confucius and Mencius.

As such, the common characteristics of these academic trends that emerged in the three East Asian countries in the specific period from the seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries, i.e., Silhak in the late Joseon dynasty of Korea, Qixue in the late Ming dynasty of China, and Kogaku in the Edo period of Japan, can be summarized into three categories. First, Zhuzi studies, based on the philosophical ideas such as the doctrine of principle (li 理) and vital forces (qi 氣), advocated a universal absolute truth using the concepts such as the Way of Heaven (tiandao 天道), human nature (xingming 性命), and the nature of the heart-mind (xinxing 心性), while Silhak, Qixue, and Kogaku all emphasized concrete actions in experienceable reality. Second, since all the three schools of thought placed particular importance on practical actions and the improvement of the social system, they gave relatively more weight to qi than to li. Third, they were generally critical of Zhu Xi's teachings and clearly showed the tendency to return to the original Confucianism centered on the teachings of Confucius and Mencius. As can be seen from these similarities, the basis of these academic trends was still rooted in the soil of Confucianism. In this respect, it can be said that the “East Asian Silhak 東亞實學 (East Asian Practical Learning)” that emerged, encompassing the Korean Silhak, the Chinese Qixue, and the Japanese Kogaku in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a sort of Confucian statecraft in which the social aspects of Confucianism were significantly strengthened.

However, it should be noted that there is a considerable distance between the “Silhak” of East Asia, which is relevant to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, particularly, the mid-to-late twentieth century, and the “Silhak” of the late Joseon dynasty. To be specific, around the port-opening period (1876–1910) of Korea, there was an increase of interest in the Confucian scholars who had intensively emphasized the Confucian idea of “governing the state and benefiting the people” during the reigns of King Yeongjo and King Jeongjo (Cho 2004, 214–23). And in the early twentieth century, Korean intellectuals, having faced Japan’s colonial rule of their country, set about the work of systemizing the strengthened Confucian statecraft of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, referring to it as “Silhak” (Noh 2019, 229). The essential things to be noted here are the purposes for which the Korean intellectuals of the times did such work. First, they paid heed to the traditional thought dating from the Joseon dynasty to kindle the national spirit among the people so that they could resist Japanese colonial rule. Second, they sought to discover the modern ideas latent in the traditional thought, particularly focusing on the school of thought emphasizing the ideas of “pragmatic statecraft" (gyeongse chiyong 經世致用) and “economic enrichment” (iyong husaeng 利用厚生), and began to call the school of thought “Silhak” (Lee 2020, 182).

This trend that emerged with an emphasis on “modernization” in the study of Korean Silhak in the twentieth century continued even after Korea attained independence from Japan in 1945. In the 1960s, especially after the end of the Korean War in 1953, when Korea began to promote in earnest modernization in the economic field, Silhak of the late Joseon dynasty served as the basis for the kind of modernization that pursued the wealth of the people and the nation through economic growth as well as for the “indigenous development theory”—which refutes the argument that Japanese colonial policy made possible modernization of Korea—to overcome the colonial view of history that had been prevalent in Korean society even after its liberation from the 35-year colonial rule by Japan (Han 2007, 29–40). In this manner, through a series of processes, the meaning of “Silhak” pursuing modernity, especially in the economic aspect, in the mid-to-late twentieth century, was added to “Silhak,” which had originally meant the strengthened Confucian statecraft in the late seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries.

Similarly, with the gradual mainstreaming of the academic trend reflecting the era’s call for “modernization focused on economic growth” in China and Japan in the mid-to-late twentieth century, Qixue of China and Kogaku of Japan, both stemming from the strengthened Confucian statecraft of the seventeenth and eighteenth century just like Silhak, began to be referred to as Silhak. This paved the way for the discussion of East Asian Silhak. East Asian Silhak in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries pursued a goal very different from that of Confucianism in its traditional sense. That is, Korean Silhak, Chinese Qixue, and Japanese Kogaku, which had shared the same Confucian statecraft in the ideological and academic context of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were integrated under the regional category of “East Asia”—in contrast to the West—in the historical and political context of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The fact that a wave of academic trends referred to as “Silhak” emerged based on strong demands for modernization in China, Japan, and Korea in the nineteenth and twentieth century tells that East Asian Silhak of the seventeenth and eighteenth century and that of the nineteenth and twentieth century are basically different in their content and nature.

III. Studies on Silhak in China and Japan in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

Considering that it is common in the history of Confucian classical studies to contrast Buddhism with Heohak 虛學 (“learning without essence,” xuxue in Chinese) and Confucianism with Silhak 實學 (“practical learning,” shixue in Chinese), this tells us that the phrase “Silhak” was a term designating the whole of Confucianism in China. However, in the 1980s, Silhak began to be studied as a concept defining the Confucian thought of the Ming and Qing period. For example, in 1985, Chen Guying 陳鼓應 (Professor of the Department of Philosophy at National Taiwan University), Xin Guanjie 辛冠潔 (Professor at the Philosophy Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), and Ge Rongjin 葛榮晉 (Professor of the School of Philosophy at Renmin University of China) launched an academic project to study the Silhak of the Ming and Qing periods—the first ever joint project between China and Taiwan, which resulted in the publication of the three-volume Ming-Qing shixue sichaoshi 明清實學思潮史 (A History of the Practical Learning School in the Ming and Qing Periods) in 1989. After its publication, Silhak was accepted as a specific academic concept in China and began to be mentioned in various treatises. In line with this trend, Ge Rongjin, in particular, has been actively advocating the study of Silhak in mainland Chinese academia since the 1990s till the recent period.

However, the trend of promoting and fostering research on Silhak did not lead to logical and distinct outcomes. In September 1992, the Taiwan Academia Sinica’s Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy held a roundtable discussion entitled “The Current Status and Prospect of the Study of Silhak in the Ming and Qing Periods” with the aim of examining the status of the studies on Silhak, which were spreading like a trend in mainland China in the early 1990s. In particular, Jiang Guanghui 姜廣輝, a professor at the Institute of History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who had participated in the writing of A History of the Practical Learning School in the Ming and Qing Period, attended the roundtable. He provided a detailed account of the book’s background, writing process, and his evaluation of studies on Silhak during the Ming and Qing periods in mainland China. The attending scholars, both from Taiwan and mainland China, presented different views on the phenomenon of studying Silhak while limiting it to that of a specific period, i.e., the Ming and Qing periods, but they agreed on the need to reexamine and discuss the starting point, scope, and content of the studies on Silhak of the Ming and Qing periods, conducted by many experts including Professor Ge Rongjin.¹

The most controversial aspect of the discussion at the roundtable concerned the specific historical and political ideology projected on Silhak of the Ming and Qing periods in China. In the process of studying the thoughts and ideas of the Ming and Qing periods within the frame of enlightenment consciousness or “embryonic capitalism,” the so-called Chinese Silhak was interpreted as an enlightenment consciousness reflecting the emergence of capitalism in the Ming and Qing periods and the ideological aspirations of the civic class. In accordance with this line of thought, Professor Ge named the Silhak of the Ming and Qing periods “Silhak of Enlightenment” (see Ge 1989, 1–14). As can be seen here, such concepts as “enlightenment consciousness” and “embryonic capitalism” that were built in the studies of the Chinese Silhak (Chinese Practical Learning) in the 1980s are no different from the slogan of embryonic modernity pursued by Korean Silhak from the early twentieth century. This means that the studies of Silhak conducted in China and Korea share a common point: that of understanding the Confucian thoughts of the past era, using the notion of modernity as the beacon of their theoretical guidance. Since they took modernity as the criterion and framework of reference, the question arose as to whether the Confucian ideology, which emphasizes practical actions in reality and strengthening the Confucian idea of “governing the state and benefiting the people,” could be seen as corresponding to the Western idea of modernity, mainly focused on economic growth and enlightenment. This question soon became the core of the critical approach that the East Asian Silhak of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries employed.

The linkage between modernity and Silhak that the studies of Silhak in Korea and China in the twentieth century elaborated on was, in fact, related to the influence of Fukuzawa Yukichi 福澤諭吉 (1835–1901), a well-known Japanese social thinker of the mid-to-late nineteenth century. In his Gakumon no susume 學問のすす (An Encouragement of Learning) published in 1872, he criticized traditional studies as being impractical and advocated Silhak, which he thought was closer to ordinary human needs. To be specific, he argued, “a person should learn the 47-letter kana syllabary, methods of letter writing and of accounting, the practice of the abacus, the way to handle weights and measures, and the like” (Fukuzawa [1872] 1993, 20–21). From this quote, it can be seen that the “Silhak” that he advocated means the learning of practical skills that would help people find jobs, such as accounting, engineering, and commerce, as well as the learning for modern industry. Fukuzawa’s Silhak was established as the basic definition of East Asian Silhak of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the Western powers were expanding their dominance across the globe, and now constitutes the main content of Japanese Silhak (“Japanese Practical Learning”).

In the 1970s, Minamoto Ryoen 源了圓 (1920–2020), then Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, included Kogaku of the Edo period—the Confucian thought that was dominant before the Meiji Restoration—in the category of Silhak in his research on Silhak of the modern era (Ogawa 2005, 1–14). Following this approach, Japanese Silhak was categorized before and after the modern period, i.e., that centered on Confucian thought and that advocated by Fukuzawa Yukichi.² However, Ryoen (2000, 15–26) views Kogaku of the Edo period as a preparation in the process of advancing to modernity in his explanation about the Japanese modernization process. This proves that it is difficult for Japanese academics to break out of the framework of “Silhak for business,” suggested by Fukuzawa Yukichi. Most Japanese people also understand “Silhak” as a term related to modern business and management, which is completely cut off from tradition, accepting Fukuzawa's definition of the term. In contrast, Koreans and Chinese understand Silhak within the scope of traditional Confucian thought, even if they view it as reflecting modern and practical aspects of the world (Han 2004, 211).

IV. Modern Transformation of East Asian Confucian Thought in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

V. Conclusion: The Relationship between East Asian New Silhak and Zhuzi Studies in the Twenty-First Century

As examined above, East Asian Silhak—encompassing Korean Silhak, Chinese Qixue, and Japanese Kogaku—which criticized abstract theories concerning the Way of Heaven and “the nature of the heart-mind” (xinxing 心性) and emphasized real-world practices and social actions in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, can be defined as a Confucian thought that critically inherited Zhuzi studies and strengthened the Confucian statecraft, rather than as a modern thought disconnected from Zhuzi studies. However, as a large share of academic attention was focused on the modern transformation of Confucian thoughts amid the prevalence of discourses on modernity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Confucian statecraft strengthened by Korean Silhak, Chinese Qixue, and Japanese Kogaku in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries began to be taken as a pioneering thought that helped in the pursuit of modernization, whereas Zhuzi studies was considered as an old-fashioned feudal thought that should be overcome.

However, entering the 1990s, the last decade of the twentieth century, questions and reflections were raised in relation to the above-mentioned academic trend. In other words, after decades of studying Silhak with the fixed framework of “pursuit of modernity centered on economic growth,” voices began to be raised for the “necessity to regain humanity and morality and put the brakes on the endless pursuit of profits” (Lee 2010, 230) in the East Asian academia. Against this backdrop, experts and scholars of China, Japan, and Korea reached a common understanding that Silhak of each of the three countries needed to be discussed together to forge “East Asian New Silhak” befitting the twenty-first century. Here, it is worth noting Lim Hyung-Teak’s (2011, 160) discussion of the New Silhak. He argued that it had “significance as a radical reflection on and questioning of the capitalist development logic, that is, the Western-led modernity and modern civilization” (Lim 2011, 147). He also emphasized the “classical humanistic tradition” and the “ideological resources” shared by the three countries, highlighting the Confucian paradigms of “cultivating the self and governing the people” (xiuji zhiren 修己治人) and “inner sage and outer king” (neisheng waiwang 内聖外王). His discussion clearly suggests that the direction of East Asian “New Silhak” in the twenty-first century should start from the Confucian point of view based on those paradigms, breaking away from the projection of the nineteenth- to twentieth-century Western modernity onto it.

Taking his discussion one step further, it should be noted that overcoming the modernization-centered bias about East Asian Silhak of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is not different from overcoming the anti-Zhuzi studies perspective and, in other words, that both should be overcame simultaneously. The reason is that in the flow of the modern transformation of Confucian thoughts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Silhak was understood as being disconnected from Zhuzi studies because it was regarded as a modern study in the process of prioritizing certain ideologies demanded by the times. Strictly speaking, New Silhak also relies on the Confucian paradigms of “cultivating the self and governing the people” and “inner sage and outer king” as its basic building blocks, just like Zhuzi studies. Therefore, the key to New Silhak is not to “dismantle” and “reform” the Confucian ideal of “inner sage and outer king” (Lim 2011, 147), but rather to first reestablish the relationship between Silhak and Zhuzi studies through the relationship between “inner sage” and “outer king.”

The Confucian ideal of “inner sage and outer king,” which was originally derived from the chapter titled “Tianxia 天下” (All Under Heaven) of Zhuangzi (Sayings of Master Zhuang),¹⁰ was set as an ideal goal that Confucian scholars should pursue from an early age. The “inner sage” means self-cultivation through which one recovers one’s lost good nature, based on moral self-sufficiency—represented by Mencius’s argument that “human nature is good” (xingshan 性善). The “outer king” means the Way of the king, which is about forming a harmonious human relationship and creating a rational society. In the context of “inner sage and outer king,” it can be said that the ideal of Zhuzi studies, which places relatively more focus on cultivating the mind, is close to the “inner sage,” while that of Silhak, which emphasizes social practices and institutional improvement, is close to the “outer king.” Here is the key to establishing the relationship between Zhuzi studies and Silhak. The “inner sage” and the “outer king” are not in a conflicting relationship in which one cannot become the “outer king” after achieving the ideal of “inner sage” and vice versa. Be that as it may, the relationship is not causal because it is not that one can become the “outer king” only after achieving the state of “inner sage” first, and vice versa. The “inner sage” and the “outer king” are not two independent virtues that are separated from each other, but an inseparable single virtue. These ideals are in a simultaneous relationship in which they mutually imply each other, enabling humans to exhibit their innate good nature in social settings, such as homes, schools, and workplaces (Chen 1995, 23–67). In essence, it is a form of synchronization between the two ideals: if there is an inner king, there must be an outer king, and vice versa.

The same applies to the relationship between Zhuzi studies and Silhak. Zhuzi studies, which puts more focus on the “inner sage,” and Silhak, which places more emphasis on the “outer king,” are neither in contradiction with each other nor in a causal relationship. Just like the relationship between the “inner sage” and the “outer king,” the relationship between Zhuzi studies and Silhak is simultaneous, being based on the same Confucian ideology. Of course, there were sometimes errors in the synchronization between Zhuzi studies and Silhak. However, their simultaneous relationship was not a static state of completion or a process of denial, but a process of revision. In view of this, it can be said that Silhak scholars of China, Japan, and Korea in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries criticized and modified Zhuzi studies to solve the “errors,” whereas those of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries tried to permanently delete Zhuzi studies and gave up the synchronization itself. In addition, it needs to be noted that the ultimate goal of the Confucian statecraft in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was not to realize Western-centered modernity, but to “bring peace to all under Heaven” (pingtianxia 平天下)—the ideal in which the “inner sage” and the “outer king” coexist.

East Asian Silhak, born out of the strengthened Confucian statecraft in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, has developed through repeated discussions and criticisms as it went through the modern transformation of Confucian thoughts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Now, if the twenty-first century’s East Asian New Silhak takes the inherent Confucian ideology, not the modernity imposed upon the three East Asian countries, as its main axis and establishes a simultaneous relationship between Zhuzi studies and Silhak through the Confucian paradigm of “inner sage and outer king,” it will be able to break out of the existing frame of “modern, anti-Zhuzi studies” and fully exert the virtues of Confucianism, which has played a purifying role in society by constantly communicating with the times.

References

• Chen, Lai 陳來. 2019. “Shijie shili: Chen Fuliang yu Yongjia xuepai zai renshi” 事皆是理: 陳傅良與永嘉學派再認識 (Everything Is Reason: Re-recognition of Chen Fuliang and the Yongjia School). Ye Shi yu Yongjia xuepai yanjiu 葉適與永嘉學派研究 (Studies on Ye Shi and the Yongjia School) 3: 134–35.
• Chen, Xiyuan 陳熙遠. 1995. “Shengwang dianfan yu rujia ‘neisheng waiwang’ de shizi yi han: yi Mengzi dui shun de quan jiewei jidian” 聖王典範與儒家‘內聖外王’的實質意涵: 以孟子對舜的詮解為基點 (The Paradigm of the Sage King and the Substantial Meaning of the Confucian “Inner Sage and Outer King”: Based on Mencius’ Interpretation of Shun). In Mengzi sixiang de lishi fazhan 孟子思想的歷史發展 (Historical Development of Mencius’ Thought), edited by Huang Junjie. Taipei: Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan Zhongguo Wenzhe Yanjiusuo Choubeichu.
• Cho, Kwang 조광. 2004. “Gaehanggi mit singminji sidae Silhak yeongu-ui teukseong” 개항기 및 식민지 시대 실학 연구의 특성 (The Characteristics of Practical Learning Studies in the Port-Opening Period and the Colonial Period of Korea). Hanguk Silhak yeongu 한국 실학 연구 (Korean Silhak Review) 7: 214–23.
• Dai, Zhen 戴震. 2009a. “Mengzi ziyi shuzheng” 孟子字義疏證 (An Evidential Study of the Meaning and Terms of the Mengzi). In Dai Zhen ji 戴震集 (The Collected Works of Dai Zhen). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
• Dai, Zhen 戴震. 2009b. “Yumoushu” 與某書 (A Letter to Someone). In Dai Zhen ji 戴震集 (The Collected Works of Dai Zhen). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
• Dai, Zhen 戴震. 2009c. “Xuyan” 緒言 (Remnants of Words), pt. 1. In Dai Zhen ji 戴震集 (The Collected Works of Dai Zhen). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
• Fukuzawa, Yukichi. 福澤諭吉. [1872] 1993. Hangmun-eul gwonham 학문을 권함 (An Encouragement of Learning). Translated by Eom Chang-jun and Kim Gyeong-sin. Seoul: Jiansa. Originally published as Gakumon no susume 学問のすすめ (An Encouragement of Learning) (Minato: Keio Gijuku Daigaku Tsushin Kyoikubu, 1872).
• Ge, Rongjin 葛榮晉. 1989. “Daolun” 導論 (Preface). In Vol. 1 of Ming-Qing shixue sichaoshi 明清實學思潮史 (The History of Practical Learning in the Ming and Qing Periods), edited by Chen Guying, Xin Guanjie, and Ge Rongjin. Jinan: Qilu Shushe.
• Ge, Rongjin 葛榮晉. 1994. Zhongguo shixue sixiangshi 中國實學思想史 (A History of Chinese Practical Learning). Vol. 1. Beijing: Shoudu Shifandaxue Chubanshe.
• Ge, Rongjin, Ogawa Haruhisa, and Jae-chao Song. 2007. “‘Shixue’ zhi sanguo ‘yanyi’” ‘實學’之三國‘演義’ (Practical Learning of the Three Kingdoms). Guangming ribao 光明日報. April 19, 2007. https://www.gmw.cn/01gmrb/2007-04/19/content_5o93720.htm, .
• Gim, Gyoel 金玟. 2020. “‘LI’ yu ‘shangdi’ zhi jian: zhuxi yu dingruoyong ‘daoxin renxin lun’ zhi bijiao yanjiu” “理”與“上帝”之間: 朱熹與丁若鏞“道心人心論”之比較研究 (Between “Li” and “Shangdi”: A Comparative Study of Zhu Xi and Jeong Yak-yong’s Theory of the Human Mind and the Moral Mind). Xinbei: Huamulan Culture Press.
• Ham, Hyun-Chan 함현찬. 2015. “Noneojing-e natanan Ogyu Sorai-ui seongingwan” 『論語徵』에 나타난 오규 소라이의 聖人觀 (A Study of the Saint Notion of Ogyu Sorai in the Rongocho). Yangmyeonghak 양명학 (Yangming Studies) 41: 337–65. [https://doi.org/10.17088/tksyms.2015..41.011]
• Han, Yae-won 한예원. 2004. “Ilbon-ui Silhak-e gwanhayeo” 일본의 실학에 관하여 (A Study on the Current Status of Research on Practical Learning and Its Prospects). Ilbon sasang 일본사상 (Journal of Japanese Thought) 6: 209–38.
• Han, Young-Woo 한영우. 2007. “‘Silhak’ yeongu-ui eoje-wa oneul: Silhak gaenyeom-ui jaejeongni” “실학” 연구의 어제와 오늘: 실학 개념의 재정리 (The Past and Present of “Practical Learning” Studies: Re-establishment of the Concept of Silhak). In Dashi, Silhak-iran mueot inga 다시, 실학이란 무엇인가 (Again, What Is Practical Learning?) by Han Young-Woo et al. Seoul: Pureun Yeoksa.
• Jiang, Guanghui 姜廣輝. 1992. “Ming-Qing shixue yanjiu xiankuang shuping” 明清實學研究現況述評 (A Review of the Current Status of the Studies on the Practical Learning of the Ming and Qing Dynasty). Zhongguo wenzhe yanjiu tongxun 中國文哲研究通訊 (Newsletter of the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy) 2.4: 10–16.
• Keum, Jang Tae 금장태. 1999. “Silhak sasang-ui hakpung-gwa jeongae: Silhak-ui segye” 실학 사상의 학풍과 전개: 실학의 세계 (Academic Tradition and Development of Practical Learning: The World of Practical Learning), pt. 1. In Hanguk yuhak-ui tamgu 한국유학의 탐구 (A Study of Korean Confucianism). Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
• Kojima, Yasunori 小島康敬. 2001. “Yugyo naebu-ui nonjaeng” 유교 내부의 논쟁 (Disputes within Confucianism). Translated by Choi Jae-mok. In Nonjaeng-eul tonghae bon ilbon sasang 논쟁을 통해 본 일본 사상 (Japanese Thoughts Seen through Controversies), edited by Imai Jun and Ozawa Tomio, 213–52. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University Press.
• Lee, Hong-jik 이홍직, ed. 1999. Guksa daesajeon 국사 대사전 (A Grand Dictionary of Korean History). Seoul: Hakwon Publishing.
• Lee, Kyungku 이경구. 2020. “Silhak” 실학 (Practical Learning). In Hangukhak haksul yongeo 한국학 학술 용어 (Academic Terminologies in the Field of Korean Studies), edited by the Academy of Korean Studies. Seongnam: Academy of Korean Studies Press.
• Lee, Woo-sung 이우성. 2010. “Hanguk-eseoui Silhak yeongu hyeonhwang-gwa dongasia yeondae uisik” 한국에서의 실학 연구 현황과 동아시아 연대 의식 (Current Status of Practical Learning Studies in Korea and a Sense of Solidarity in East Asia). In Silsihaksasango 실시학사산고 (A Study of Practical Learning), Vol. 4 of Yi U-seong jeojakjip 이우성 저작집 (Collected Works of Lee Wooseong). Paju: Changbi.
• Liang, Qichao. 梁啟超. [1924] 2017. Zhongguo jin sanbainian xueshushi 中國近三百年學術史 (A History of Chinese Scholarship in the Past Three Hundred Years), annotated and edited by Xia Xiaohong and Lu Yin. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
• Lim, Hyong-Taek 임형택. 2009. “Dongasia Silhak-ui gaenyeom jeongnip-eul wihayeo” 동아시아 실학의 개념 정립을 위하여 (For the Establishment of the Concept of East Asian Practical Learning). Hanguk Silhak yeongu 한국실학연구 (Korean Silhak Review) 18: 7-39.
• Lim, Hyong-Taek 임형택. 2011. “Shin Silhak, geu ganeungseong-gwa banghyang” 신실학, 그 가능성과 방향 (New Practical Learning, Its Possibilities and Directions). Hanguk Silhak yeongu 한국실학연구 (Korean Silhak Review) 22: 147–66.
• Lin, Yuehhui 林月惠. 2016. “‘Yiyi’ de zaiyi: jinshi dongya de ‘lixue’ yu ‘qixue’” “異議” 的再議: 近世東亞的 “理學” 與 “氣學” (Reappraisal of “Dissent”: Neo-Confucianism and the Philosophy of Qi in Early Modern East Asia). Dongwu zhexue xuebao 東吳哲學學報 (Soochow Journal of Philosophical Studies) 34: 97–144.
• Maruyama, Masao 丸山真男. [1947] 1992. “Fuze de ‘shixue’ de zhuanhui: fuze yuji zhexue yanjiu xulun” 福澤的 “實學” 的轉回: 福澤諭吉哲學研究緒論 (On the Turn of Fukuzawa’s “Practical Learning”: Preface to the Studies on Fukuzawa’s Philosophy). In Fuze yuji yu riben jindaihua 福澤諭吉與日本近代化 (Fukuzawa Yukichi and Japan’s Modernization). Translated by Qu Jianying. Shanghai: Xuelin Chubanshe.
• Minamoto, Ryoen 源了圓. 2000. Dokugawa sidae-ui cheolhak sasang 도쿠가와 시대의 철학 사상 (Philosophical Thought of the Tokugawa Period). Translated by Park Kyu-tae and Lee Yong-soo. Seoul: Yemun Seowon.
• Mogi, Makoto 茂木誠. 2001. “Gukhak-gwa yugo-ui nonjaeng” 국학과 유교의 논쟁 (Disputes between Kogaku and Confucianism). Translated by Han Yaewon. In Nonjaeng-eul tonghae bon ilbon sasang 논쟁을 통해 본 일본 사상 (Japanese Thoughts Seen through Controversies), edited by Imai Jun and Ozawa Tomio, 253–97. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University Press.
• Noh, KwanBum 노관범. 2019. “Hanguk tongsa-ro boneun ‘Silhak’-ui jisiksa siron” 한국 통사로 보는 “실학”의 지식사 시론 (An Essay on the History of Knowledge of “Practical Learning” as Seen through the History of Korea). Hanguk munhwa 한국 문화 (Korean Culture) 88: 209–53.
• Ogawa, Haruhisa 小川陽久. 2005. “Ilbon Silhak ui hyeongseong gwa baljeon” 일본 실학의 형성과 발전 (The Formation and Development of Japanese Practical Learning). Translated by Han Yae-won. Ilbon sasang 일본 사상 (Journal of Japanese Thought) 8: 1–83.
• Zheng, Zongyi 鄭宗義. 2005. “Lun ruxue zhong ‘qixing’ yilu zhi jianli” 論儒學中 “氣性”一路之建立 (On the Establishment of the Way of “Qi Nature” in Confucianism). In Ruxue de qilun yu gongfulun 儒學的氣論與工夫論 (Confucian Theories of Self-Cultivation and Energy), edited by Yang Rubin and Zhu Pingci, 247–77. Taipei: National Taiwan University Press.
• Zheng, Zongyi 鄭宗義. 2009. Ming-Qing ruxue zhuanxing tanxi: cong Liu Jishan dao Dai Dongyuan 明淸儒學轉型探析: 從劉蕺山到戴東原 (A Survey of Transition in Ming-Qing Confucianism: From Liu Zongzhou to Dai Dongyuan). Hong Kong: Xianggang Zhongwendaxue Chubanshe.