Stanislavsky’s acting theory, the ‘System’, has made a great impact on actors and the actor training process since the modern age. Although the Stanislavsky System was introduced in Korea for the first time in the 1920s, a full-fledged discussion has only begun after the 1990s. The System can be characterized as three parts : ‘acting as embodiment’, ‘psychological acting’, and ‘systematic acting with scientific attitude’. This thesis focuses on these three parts from a critical perspective. At first, Stanislavsky’s idea of embodiment assumes that humans have a unique original nature. More to the point, experiencing helps the actor to fulfil his basic goal, which is the creation of the life of the human spirit in a role and the communication of that life onstage in artistic form. The belief in the life of the human spirit is caused by modern subjectivity. This concept of a natural, intrinsic, universal modern subject never embraces the postmodern subject which is fluid, fragmental and ideological. Secondly, the System is based on dualism, the idea that the mind controls the body. This originated from a nature-culture dichotomy where culture (male, mind, text) controls, shapes, and tames nature (female, emotions, the body). Futhermore, psychology exists outside of ideology, and, therefore, can be applied to any theatrical genre. Although Stanislavsky tried to overcome the mind-body dichotomy through training of his system, he always thought the mind as divided from the body. Lastly, the systematic acting with scientific attitude is also a result of the modernistic concept. With its scientific and systematic language, system never coopts something ‘unstable’, ‘unqualified’, or ‘unborderable.’ More to the point, an organic approach can lead actors to erase themselves from the social and historical context. ‘Truth’ was Stanislavsky’s aim for art, and the approach he developed for the actor was significantly influenced by the modern concepts of subjectivity and science. Stanislavsky often discussed theatre and acting as projects that would seek out, discover and celebrate the so-called universal human attributes and values. The language of acting can never be universal. Therefore, we have to continuously challenge the searching for the ‘language of acting which best allows one to actualize a particular paradigm of performance in a particular context for a particular purpose.’