(Park Gu-yong, Kim Eo-jun's Gyeonggong) Professor Park Gu-yong explores contemporary democracy through 20th century French structuralist philosophy.

Introduction - The Philosophical Wounds Left by War

In the early 20th century, humanity experienced profound loss and turmoil through two world wars. This was not just a political and economic shock but a philosophical shock that shook belief in human existence itself. After this period, Western philosophy moved away from the tradition of placing humans at the center of the world and instead turned towards thinking that deconstructs and reconstructs humanity. This essay outlines the philosophical transitions from the era of ancient metaphysics through the age of the subject to the age of structure, exploring the significance that the institution of democracy can hold within this flow of thought today.

The Era of Pursuing Essence - Metaphysics and God

The origin of Western philosophy began with the exploration of essence. Plato argued that there exists a world of ideal essence beyond the sensory world through the concept of Ideas. This notion grew into a system during medieval scholastic philosophy, combining with Christian theism and centering God as the ultimate reason for all existence. During this period, humans were understood not as subjects who recognize or transform the world, but as creatures who follow divine providence. Philosophy unfolded in the realm of metaphysics, questioning essence, that is, the source and purpose of all existence, and truth was believed to exist in a transcendent realm outside of humanity.

The Era of the Subject - Humans are Thinking Beings

By the 17th century, Descartes, who opened the doors of modern philosophy, led a shift toward human-centered thought with the proposition "I think, therefore I am." This was a decisive moment in finding the starting point of the world in human consciousness. Humans emerged as subjects who interpret the world and construct its meaning. In the 18th century, Kant emphasized through the concept of "transcendental apperception" that humans are not merely thinking beings, but beings who recognize and construct their own thoughts. Humans were positioned as active subjects who understand and construct the world based on reason and freedom, rather than as mere natural objects or passive entities. In the 19th century, this human-centered worldview translated into historical practices, expanding into the ideas that humans can change their lives and society themselves, such as the French Revolution, Enlightenment, and socialism. During this period, humans were the subjects of history, the center of the force that changes the world.

The Age of Existence - The Fallen Human

However, as the 20th century approached, this optimistic view of humanity faced serious challenges. The two world wars demonstrated that humans could be destructive and cruel beings rather than rational ones. Consequently, philosophical trust in humanity rapidly eroded. This period saw the rise of existentialism. The prominent philosopher Sartre declared that 'existence precedes essence', emphasizing that humans do not have a predetermined essence and are unstable beings who create their own existence. The subject transformed from being an autonomous and rational entity into an individual living a lonely and uncertain life. Humans were no longer portrayed as the subjects of history and the world but as beings living with existential anxiety, revealing the limitations of the anthropocentrism that had expanded since modernity.

The Age of Structure - Humans Create Structure

Existentialism confronted human solitude, but the recognition that humans remain the center of the world persisted. However, structuralism, which emerged in France in the mid-20th century, thoroughly deconstructs even this. Structuralism argues that humans are not beings that create meaning, but beings that are assigned meaning within pre-existing structures. Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure explained that the meaning of language does not arise from some essence but is formed through differences with other signs. For example, the meaning of the word "danmuji" (pickled radish) is defined not by its own origin or essence but by its differences with other ingredients in kimbap. This signifies a shift from a diachronic method, which traces the meaning of language into the past, to a synchronic methodology that understands it within the current web of relationships. Expanding on this perspective, Lacan states that the unconscious and language determine human existence. He posited that "I exist where I do not think," asserting that humans are not subjects of consciousness but exist within the structures of the unconscious and language. This represented a decisive turning point that dismantled human autonomy and subjectivity. Humans have fallen from being "speaking beings" to being "spoken beings."

Post-structuralism - Structure is not absolute

Structuralism deconstructs the human subject, stripping away the myth of humanism while simultaneously facing another problem that presupposes the absoluteness of the structure itself. In reflection of this, post-structuralism emerges. Post-structuralism emphasizes that the structure itself is never fixed and is always fluid and deconstructible. The understanding that meaning is not fixed, and that all philosophical categories such as power, gender, subject, and truth are constantly in flux has spread. This has significantly influenced the explanation of uncertainty and plurality in postmodern society. The flow of philosophical history regarding the concept of the subject can be summarized as follows: Subject → subject → Intersubject → Postsubject. The initial capitalized Subject is the concept that assumed humans as rational subjects in modern philosophy after Descartes. It signifies humans as the subjects of history, freedom, and cognition. However, after the world wars, this subjectivity is reduced to the lowercase subject, that is, the incomplete and deconstructed individual. Existentialism and structuralism clearly illustrate the cracks in this subject. Subsequently, philosophy further explores the relationality between subjects, or the space of 'between.' This is the concept of Intersubject. Humans are understood not as isolated subjects, but as beings that form meaning in relation to others. Today, we have reached the era of Postsubject, which signifies a subject living with a fluid and complex identity, without a fixed self or center. In this era where both structure and subject have been deconstructed, humanity asks again, “Who am I, and how can we exist together?”

Where We Stand – Is Democracy at the Forefront of Philosophy?

Professor Park Gu-yong traces the flow of philosophy's history and examines the status and possibility of Korean democracy from a new perspective today. He states that despite living in an era after structuralism, where belief in humanity has been thoroughly deconstructed, Korean democracy remains a model that does not abandon human dignity and potential. This is not merely an issue of institutions but a philosophical reflection on how to perceive humanity. Democracy goes beyond just voting and procedures it is a way for unstable beings to recognize each other and coexist. The philosophical practice that reconnects the lonely individual presented by existentialism and the autonomous subject deconstructed by structuralism within the community is democracy itself. The democratic experiment demonstrated by Korean society might be the most acute space for trying to restore human potential beyond theory.

Conclusion – Asking Humans Again on the Ruins of Philosophy

Western philosophy has been a continuous subversion leading from essence to subject, from subject to structure, and from structure to deconstruction. In that process, humanity has fallen from absolute existence to an increasingly uncertain and fragmented existence. However, through this philosophical journey, we have come to understand humanity more deeply and have learned to view human possibilities with greater humility. Today, democracy stands at the forefront of this philosophical transformation. It is no longer a declaration of a great subject, but a process seeking companionship and coexistence among suffering and trembling subjects. On the remnants left by philosophy, democracy continues to attempt to answer the question of what it means to be human. In this unstable era, we must ask again: Who are we as humans, and how can we live together? Our answers to that question will determine the democracy of tomorrow.