Could the Aristotelian square of opposition be translated into Chinese?
- 94 Downloads
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ackrill, J. L. 1966.Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Auyang, Sunny Y. 1998.The Foundations of Complex Systems Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Barnes, Jonathan, ed. 1984.Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- —, trans. 1975.Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Barwise, Jon, and John Etchmendy. 1999.Language Proof and Logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Chang, Tung-sun. 1939. “A Chinese Philosopher’s Theory of Knoweldge.”Yenching Juanal of Social Studies I.2.Google Scholar
- Copi, I. M. 1990.Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Feng, Qi. 1983.The Logical Development of Chinese Ancient Philosophy Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
- Graham, A. C. 1978.Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science. Hong Kong & London: SOAS.Google Scholar
- Graham, A. C., trans. 1986.Chuang-Tzu: The Inner Chapters. London: Mandata.Google Scholar
- Griffin, James. 1964.Wittgenstein’s Logical Atomism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1995.Anticipating China. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Watson, Burton, tr. 1963.Mo Tzu: Basic Writings. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Yuan, Ke. 1985.The Dictionary of Chinese Myth and Legend Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe.Google Scholar