PART II INTRODUCTION 121
mention at all of the late Ming and early Ch'ing statecraft writers like Ku Yen-
wu and Huang Tsung-hsi, and appears to have been ignorant of their work.
In summary, the Sung Neo-Confucians advertised the superiority of Chou insti-
tutions and advocated their restoration in contemporary times with adaptations
to current circumstances. The Han dynasty represented the successful preser-
vation of Chou institutions. The Northern and Southern dynasties illustrated the
adverse consequences of the loss of fairness and the rise of inherited privilege,
pedigree, and aristocracy. The Tang dynasty represented the problems of
bureaucracy and its deplorable influence on proper education and training and
the fair selection of the best possible men for government.Yu's METHOD AND GOALS: MODERNITY AND NATIONALISM?One of the purposes of this book is to explore the reasons for Yu's institutional
approach to the reform and recreation of the Korean ruling class, the sources of
wisdom he sought in his research, and the fundamental elements necessary to
a solution. The hope is that this search will yield answers not only to the defi-
nition of the optimum, if not ideal, society that Yu was trying to fashion, but
also the method of his pursuit.
In the face of current views that portray Yu as the pioneer of trends leading
to modernity and nationalism, it is necessary to judge whether his method con-
tained any elements of a rationalistic and empirical pursuit of objective truth at
the expense of conventional and inherited wisdom. As a member of a Confu-
cian culture that honored the past, the ancient past in particular, did he seek to
break away from the constraints of that historical impedimel1t, or if not, did he
use ancient precedent to lead the way toward a rejection of the intervening accre-
tions of orthodox thought? In particular, did he use the reinterpretation of the
classics by the Sung philosophers to break a new path of development for Con-
fucianism or beyond Confucianism? If not, then how did he use the lessons of
history in general and Korean history in particular?
Did he view history as a record of progress in the optimistic view that the
recent past shows greater development than the remote past, or that the future
holds greater promise than the past? Did he turn to the specific history of Korea
as a source of wisdom independent from China and Chinese culture, and con-
tribute to the foundation of a stronger sense of national consciousness than what
existed before his time? And what precedents did he find important, and how
did he apply them to his own social situation?
Did he challenge the fundamental moral framework of Confucian statecraft
by moving toward the creation of a set of moral principles based on a Kantian
analysis through a priori reason, or an emphasis on a value-free consideration
of fact or practical utilitarianism separate from religious belief, and did he believe
that this goal should be incorporated into his program for education? If not, then
on what basis did he establish the foundation for the reform of society?