Kim Jeong-guk aspired to follow the teachings of Zhu-Xi, but also emphasized the importance of “Results(事功).” He was very critical of the past in which sticking to principles led to dismal historical failures. He thought the people in the past paid too much a price, for trying to pursue their ideals without considering the situation. He argued that Jo Gwang-jo and other members of the Kimyo-year Sarim group, who pursued radical reforms, not only failed to bring their political ideals to reality but invite the retribution of the Old power. Of course, Kim Jeong-guk himself deeply agreed with the Dohak(道學, Neo-Confucianism) studies, so he stood with the Gimyo Sarim group, and that is why we should recognize him primarily as a Confucian student. Yet he did not hesitate to compromise as well. In his eyes, ideals should be realized in real life circumstances, so he deemed his own choices not as mere copping out but the best possible way to pursue considering the situation. For that, we can call him a Neo-Confucian who also pursued ways that were allowed by the situation surrounding him.
The Joseon dynasty, since its very foundation, had continued to try ‘enlightening’ local regions through the institution of ‘Dokbeob(讀法).’ This institution, based upon dictations of 『Ju’rye(周禮)』, was essentially a practice of arranging gatherings of people four times a year, and read legal clauses to them so that the occasion itself would serve as a reminder for them not to violate law or perpetrate crimes. Of course, the level of literary knowledge of the local Sajok figures and Confucian students were fairly low at the time, so fundamental enlightening of the rest of the general public, including all commoners and low-borns(常賤), was not a task to be accomplished anytime soon. In the Hwang’hae-do province where Kim Jeong-guk was sent, there was even a son who killed his own father but was not aware that such action was indeed a crime. There was no point in executing people who were that much oblivious to legal issues, as simply removing them would not contribute to social enlightenment at all. At the same time, emphasizing human obligations and morality was not the answer either. Leaders at the time had to walk the fine line between enlightenment and punishment.