A Comparison of Korean and Japanese Scholars' Attitudes toward Newtonian Science

This article observes how Newtonian science was interpreted by two intellectuals from Korea and Japan who encountered it for the first time in their respective countries. In their responses, Korea's Choe Hangi and Japan's Shizuki Tadao displayed both similarities and differences. First, they are similar because they interpreted Newtonian science using traditional East Asian gi theory. Universalism and materialism of gi functioned as a common intellectual basis for premodern intellectuals of East Asia. Despite their common gi-based foundation, their thoughts on natural philosophy, as expressed through their interpretations of Newtonian science, display differences. Choe Hangi built a gi philosophy of his own using only gi theory. Devising a gi mechanism, Choe ultimately discarded Newtonian physics. In his gihak, the supranatural God was not recognized and all phenomena of nature were explained using only his mechanics of gi. Shizuki Tadao also attempted to interpret Newtonian science by applying the theory of gi. He denied the concept of a vacuum, and sought to explain the source and mechanism of gravity through gi. He did not, however, exhaustively pursue the theory and philosophy of gi as did Choe Hangi. Accepting the perspective of Newtonian science, Shizuki Tadao recognized the origin of gravity as unknowable. Then, Shizuki could not deduce the standard of morals and ethics of the humanity from the principles of nature and had to acknowledge the supranatural God as the creator and ruler of nature. The Newtonian science these two East Asian intellectuals understood was not the Newtonian science of the West. In premodern East Asia, Newtonian science was a context dependent knowledge, meaning its place was dependent upon specific historical and cultural contexts.