Dao

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 137–149

Could the Aristotelian square of opposition be translated into Chinese?

Articles

Conclusion

To translate the Aristotelian square of opposition into Chinese requires restructuring the Aristotelian system of genus-species into the Chinese way of classification and understanding of the focus-field relationship. The feature of the former is on a “tree” model, while that of the later is on the focusfield model. Difficulties arise when one tries to show contraries betweenA- type and E-type propositions in the Aristotelian square of opposition in Chinese, because there is no clear distinction between universal and particular in a focus-field structure of thinking. If there could be a chance to discuss the analytic identity between the two logical systems, then it might be only constituted during a face to face conversation in the present, or, in other words, in the translation of particular propositions (singular subjective,I-type, andO-type propositions) in a particular case. The best hope for a translator is that in the actual temporally situated practice,now he or she might find a temporary way to map the concepts of one to the other with relatively little loss of structure.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackrill, J. L. 1966.Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Auyang, Sunny Y. 1998.The Foundations of Complex Systems Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, Jonathan, ed. 1984.Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. —, trans. 1975.Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, Jon, and John Etchmendy. 1999.Language Proof and Logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, Tung-sun. 1939. “A Chinese Philosopher’s Theory of Knoweldge.”Yenching Juanal of Social Studies I.2.Google Scholar
  7. Copi, I. M. 1990.Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Feng, Qi. 1983.The Logical Development of Chinese Ancient Philosophy Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
  9. Graham, A. C. 1978.Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science. Hong Kong & London: SOAS.Google Scholar
  10. Graham, A. C., trans. 1986.Chuang-Tzu: The Inner Chapters. London: Mandata.Google Scholar
  11. Griffin, James. 1964.Wittgenstein’s Logical Atomism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1995.Anticipating China. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  13. Tiles, Mary, 1997. “Images of Reason in Western Culture.” InIntroduction to World Philosophies. Edited by Eliot Deutsch. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Watson, Burton, tr. 1963.Mo Tzu: Basic Writings. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1974.Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness. Atlantic Highland, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Yuan, Ke. 1985.The Dictionary of Chinese Myth and Legend Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonolulu
  2. 2.Creighton UniversityOmaha

Personalised recommendations