Abstract
The article explores the characteristics and the use of the Classical Chinese rhetorical technique of argumentation (bian 辯) in early Chinese philosophical literature, with focus on “Masters texts” (zhishu 子書). It aims at providing a basic though accurate introduction into one of the most relevant argumentative strategies employed by early Chinese persuaders in the late pre-imperial and early imperial period. It contextualizes the use of argumentation, providing a historical and literary overview of the cultural background that produced the kind of argumentative texts in which this technique was employed. The article also touches upon issues such as the semantic scope and early definitions of the term bian in the received literature, and alleged criticism of the misuse of this technique and of the moral integrity of the persuaders that resorted to argumentation to win an argument. Through pertinent examples drawn from early Chinese philosophico-argumentative texts, the article illustrates the distinctive features of this rhetorical technique with particular attention paid to paradoxes, and briefly analyses the most famous case of argumentation in the history of Classical Chinese thought, the so-called “white horse” (baima 白馬) argument.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
On the issue of the use of the term “rhetoric” in a non-Western context and the limits of its applicability, see Indraccolo and Behr 2014.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
Valesio 1980: 41–42.
- 6.
Forke1901–02.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
Translations included in this article are mine unless otherwise stated.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
“Pien of the Canons is somewhat narrower than argumentation in general, its usual meaning in pre-Han literature.” (Graham 1978: 319).
- 15.
References
Carson, Michael. 1983. “The Battle of Words in Ancient China.” Asian Culture Quarterly 11.2: 48–61.
Chong, Chaehyun. 1999. “The Neo-Mohist Conception of Bian (Disputation).” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 26.1: 1–19.
Crump, James I., Jr. 1964. 戰國策 Intrigues: Studies of the Chan-kuo Ts’e. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mark. 2002. “Traditional Taxonomies and Revealed Texts in the Han.” In Livia Kohn and Harold D. Roth, eds., Daoist Identity – History, Lineage, and Ritual, 81–101. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mark, and Michael Nylan. 2003. “Constructing Lineages and Inventing Traditions through Exemplary Figures in Early China.” T’oung Pao 83: 59–99.
Forke, Alfred. 1901–02. “The Chinese Sophists.” Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 34: 1–100.
Garrett, Mary M. 1993. “Classical Chinese Rhetorical Conceptions of Argumentation and Persuasion.” Argumentation and Advocacy 29.3: 105–115.
Graham, Angus C. 1959. “‘Being’ in Western Philosophy Compared with Shih/Fei and Yu/Wu in Chinese Philosophy.” Asia Major New Series 7.1: 79–112.
Graham, Angus C. 1964. “The Logic of the Mohist Hsiao’chü.” T’oung Pao 51.1: 1–54.
Graham, Angus C. 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. London/Hong Kong: School of Oriental and African Studies/The Chinese University Press.
Hansen, Chad. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Indraccolo, Lisa. 2014. “The Difficulties of shuì/shuō 說: Persuasions, Explanations and Sayings in the Hán Fēizǐ 韓非子 and Beyond.” Paper presented at the Sinologisches Kolloquium (Sinological Colloquium), Rheinish Friedrich Wilhelm-University of Bonn, Germany, 22nd January 2014 (unpublished).
Indraccolo, Lisa, and Wolfgang Behr. 2014. “Introduction.” In “Masters of Disguise? Conceptions and Misconceptions of ‘Rhetoric’in Chinese Antiquity” Special Issue, Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques 68.4: 889–913.
Johnston, Ian. 2010. The Mozi: A Complete Translation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kroll, Jurij L. 1985–86. “Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture.” Early China 11–12: 119–145.
Lau, Din Cheuk (D.C.). 1963, “On Mencius’ Use of the Method of Analogy in Argument.” Asia Major 10: 173–194.
Lu, Xing. 1998. Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E. – A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Lu, Xing, and David A. Frank 1993. “On the Study of Ancient Chinese Rhetoric/Bian 辩.” Western Journal of Communication 57.4: 445–463.
Petersen, Jens Østergaard. 1995. “Which Books Did the First Emperor of Ch’in Burn? On the Meaning of Pai Chia in Early Chinese Sources.” Monumenta Serica 43: 1–52.
Nylan, Michael. 2000. “Textual Authority in Pre-Han and Han.” Early China 25: 205–258.
Raphals, Lisa. 1992. Knowing Words – Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Ryden, Edmund. 1996. “Was Confucius a Confucian? Confusion over the Use of the Term ‘School’ in Chinese Philosophy.” Early China News 9.5–9: 28–29.
Schwermann, Christian. 2011. “Gattungsdynamik in der traditionellen chinesischen Literatur: Von der ‘Erläuterung’ (shuō) zur ‘Erzählung’ (xiǎoshuō)” [Generic Dynamics in Traditional Chinese Literature. From the ‘Explanation’ (shuō) to ‘Narrative’ (xiǎoshuō)]. In Stephan Conermann and Amr El Hawary, eds., Was sind Genres? Nicht-abendländische Kategorisierungen von Gattungen [What are Genres? Non-Western Categorizations of Genres]. Berlin: EB Verlag, 47–85.
Smith, Kidder. 2003. “Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, ‘Legalism’ et cetera.” The Journal of Asian Studies 62.1: 129–156.
Valesio, Paolo. 1980. Novantiqua – Rhetorics as a Contemporary Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
I would like to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this contribution.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Indraccolo, L. (2020). Argumentation (Bian 辯). In: Fung, Ym. (eds) Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29033-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29033-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29031-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29033-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)