Abstract
The chapter provides a short summary of the studies of analogical reasoning in ancient China in China and the West in the twentieth century. The chapter contains an analysis of interpretations of an excerpt from the Meng Zi 孟子offered by several authors including Zhu Xi, James Legge, D. C. Lau, J.-P. Reding, Chad Hansen, Liu Yameng, and Chris Fraser. The author claims that the first-order predicate logic cannot be used for study of this and other cases of analogical inference in ancient Chinese texts and provides a new interpretation of the excerpt.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The pinyin transliteration system adopted in Mainland China and in European sinological works is used throughout this chapter. I use the traditional versions of Chinese characters for all Chinese and Japanese names and book titles.
- 2.
For a detailed study of their work see (Kurtz2011).
- 3.
See (Kurtz2011: 319 ff) for more details.
- 4.
- 5.
For instance, Liang Qichao interpreted the category of analogical inference yuan 援 mentioned in the Mo zi as sorites (Kurtz2011: 323). On sorites in China see below.
- 6.
It is generally assumed that Hu Shi’s monograph (Hu 1922) was based upon his doctoral dissertation prepared in Columbia University (New York) under directorship of J. Dewey (1859–1952) and completed in 1917; 2 years later Hu published a Chinese version of this work (Hu 1919). For a general description of Hu Shi’s work see (Kurtz2011: 346–350); on the date of the formal conferral of Hu Shi’s doctoral degree (1927), see (Tang 1977: 56).
- 7.
Chapter 3, “Cause, form, and deduction”, pp. 93–98; Chapter 4 “Induction”, pp. 99–108. The latter chapter is devoted to an analysis of the four forms of “induction” (i.e., analogical inference) found in the Mo zi; for their detailed discussion see (Fraser 2009) as well as the chapter on “Reasoning” in the present volume authored by Yang Wujin. On the textual history of the Mo zi see (Graham1993).
- 8.
See (Hu 1922: 97). Hu does not mention Zhang’s attempts to compare Moist logical thought with Buddhist logic which occupied much more prominent place than Aristotelian syllogistics in the latter’s analysis. For a detailed presentation of Zhang’s studies of ancient Chinese logic see (Kurtz 2011: 301–312).
- 9.
The term “Mohist” has been systematically used in literature in English; in this chapter I use the spelling “Moist” instead.
- 10.
A sorites is an inference of the form A1⊃A2, A2⊃A3,…,An-1⊃An ⇒ A1⊃An; here and below “⊃” is the symbol of implication, and “F1, F2,.. Fm ⇒ F″ means “F can be deduced from {F1, …, Fm}”.
- 11.
Masson-Oursel was not the first author who identified some excerpts in ancient Chinese treatises as “sorites”; to the best of my knowledge it was done for the first time some 80 years earlier by Guillaume Pauthier (1801–1873) (Pauthier 1832: 6, n. 2). However, when discussing “Chinese sorites” in (Masson-Oursel 1912), Masson-Oursel does not mention the work of Pauthier.
- 12.
Translation cited from (Mei 1929: 78).
- 13.
The original French text reads as follows (Maspero 1928: 3):
« I. Raisonnement principal:
1. Conclusion: “Comme c’est l’affaire du Saint de bien gouverner le monde, il doit connaître l’origine du désordre”.
2. Elément moyen du sorite non contenu dans la conclusion: “et alors il pourra écarter le désordre”.
3. Proposition négative: “S’il ignorait l’origine du désordre, il ne pourrait pas l’écarter”.
4. Comparaison: “C’est juste comme le médecin”.
II. Raisonnement secondaire sur la comparaison:
5. Conclusion: “(Comme) il doit combattre la maladie, il doit connaître l’origine de la maladie”.
6. Elément moyen du sorite non contenu dans la conclusion: “et alors il pourra la combattre”.
7. Proposition négative: “S’il n’en connaissait pas l’origine, il ne pourrait pas la combattre”. » (Here and everywhere is this chapter translations into English are mine, unless stated otherwise.)
- 14.
I do not discuss here whether this interpretation suggested by Maspero reflects adequately enough the subtleties of the original text.
- 15.
Technically, since each inference contains only two premises and a conclusion, we are dealing here with syllogisms, even though not Aristotelian ones, and not with just sorites.
- 16.
Here and below I use the symbol “¬” for negation.
- 17.
It remains unclear what was the definition of sorites used by Maspero (and, ultimately, by Masson-Oursel). The contemporaneous French manuals on logic provide rather informal and slightly diverging definitions; see, for instance, (Bain 1875: 311–312; Liard 1892: 51–52; de Fornel de La Laurencie 1906: 62–63).
- 18.
Once again, see YangWujin’s chapter of the present volume for more details.
- 19.
“En résumé, l’exemple est le plus souvent le centre de la discussion: on l’accepte ou on le réfute, mais c’est toujours lui qu’on discute et non directement la proposition affirmée. Quant au raisonnement proprement dit dont cette proposition peut être considérée comme la conclusion, il n’est presque jamais exprimé. C’est l’exemple qui est chargé de le remplacer; et ce système qui, au point de vue de la Logique, manque de rigueur, est excellent au point de vue de l’art de la discussion, car l’exemple frappe, et d’autre part il permet de reporter la discussion d’une question compliquée à une autre plus simple et que tout le monde connait. Comme je l’ai déjà dit, c’est l’évidence indiscutable de la proposition affirmée dans l’exemple qui, si l’adversaire ne peut réfuter l’exemple en montrant qu’il ne s’applique pas bien, se communiquera à la proposition discutée, en sorte qu’elle deviendra évidente. I1 faut ajouter que, en se plaçant à un point de vue moins formel, cet ensemble, affirmation et exemple, constitue une sorte de raisonnement rudimentaire qui proprement n’est ni inductif ni déductif, mais est analogique, toute sa force reposant dans le rapprochement des analogies entre la proposition affirmée et 1’exemple.” (Maspero 1927: 35–36)
- 20.
Apparently, Cheng himself did not value much Maspero’s interpretations of analogical reasoning, since he praised only “comparative studies” of the French scholar. In his comment on Maspero’s paper of 1928 Cheng wrote “Maspero’s own suggestions are highly open to criticism”, but did not specify what exactly did not satisfy him.
- 21.
See, for instance, (Chmielewski 1965a; 1969) reprinted in (Chmielewski 2009: 227–251, 317–337), respectively.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
The tags “CYKn” and “MZn” will be used below to refer to parts of this dialog.
- 27.
J. Legge informs that the biography of Chunyu Kun, “a famous sophist”, is found in chapter 126 of the Shi ji 史記. (Legge 1875: 246)
- 28.
The drowning person is a relative and not just any female. This element of the story usually is not discussed by modern authors.
- 29.
J. Legge is probably closer to the original meaning of 豺狼 chai lang (lit. “ravenous wolves”/“jackals and wolves”, a popular metaphor for wicked/vicious individuals, often unprincipled/cruel rulers) when rendering this phrase as follows: “He who would not [so] rescue his drowning sister-in-law would be a wolf” (Legge 1875: 246).
- 30.
Legge’s translation reads: “when a sister-in-law is drowning, to rescue her with the hand is a peculiar exigency.” (ibid.).
- 31.
“Empire” can hardly be a good rendering of tian xia 天下 (“All-under-heaven”, the inhabited world) because Meng Ke lived prior to the establishment of the first Chinese Empire in 221 BC. Legge (ibid.) suggests “Kingdom”, which is not a good solution either since it limits the statements of the interlocutors to only one kingdom.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
Here and below “&” is the symbol of conjunction.
- 35.
Here and below “≡” is the symbol of equivalence: X≡Y means (X⊃Y) & (Y⊃X).
- 36.
See (Reding 2004: 34). Reding does not provide an actual inference of [5] from [1–4], but instead proves that [1]&[2]&[3]&[4] ⊃ [5] is a tautology. The inference would not be too difficult to obtain though: (¬U ⊃ ¬S) follows from [3] and [4], and it implies (R & ¬U ⊃ R & ¬S); then [2] can be used to obtain T, which means that [2],[3],[4],(R & ¬U) ⇒ T and therefore [2],[3],[4] ⇒ (R & ¬U ⊃ T) (interestingly enough, premise [1], seemingly the most important one, is not used in this inference).
- 37.
Meng zi ji zhu 孟子集注 (Meng zi with collected commentaries), 四庫全書薈要 (The Essentials of the Complete Collection of Books of the Four Treasuries), vol. 3024, juan 4, p. 11b.
- 38.
Legge renders dao as “right principles”.
- 39.
- 40.
“Standard” is a technical term introduced by Fraser to discuss analogical reasoning conducted by a transfer from one “standard” (or “model”) situation to a situation under consideration.
- 41.
In Reding’s table (see Table 8.1) “the Way” should be placed in a position corresponding to “a hand” (not shown in the table) and not to “the rites”.
- 42.
See (Knechtges and Chang 2014: 952–955).
- 43.
- 44.
V. Spirin’s attempts (1976, 1991) to study textual parallelisms in Chinese texts as forming particular patterns, theoretically, may be useful for a study of the use of parallelisms in Chinese argumentation (Volkov 1991); see also A. Krushinskiĭ’s (1988) short paper for an attempt to design an appropriate formal language for dealing with Chinese analogical inferences.
References
Bain, Alexander. 1875. Logique déductive et inductive. Trad. de l’anglais par Gabriel Compayré. Paris: Germer-Baillère.
Cheng, Chung-ying. 1965. “Inquiries into classical Chinese logic.” Philosophy East and West 15.3/4: 195–216. (An overview of the studies of Chinese logic in China and the West accompanied by an annotated bibliography.)
Chmielewski, Janusz. 1962–1969. “Notes on Early Chinese Logic.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny, [Part 1] vol. 26, no. 1 (1962): 7–21; [Part 2] vol. 26, no. 2 (1963a): 91–105; [Part 3] vol. 27, no. 1 (1963b): 103–121; [Part 4] vol. 28, no. 2 (1965a): 87–111; [Part 5] vol. 29, no. 2 (1965b): 116–138; [Part 6] vol. 30, no. 1 (1966): 31–52; [Part 7] vol. 31, no. 1 (1968): 117–136; [Part 8] vol. 32, no. 2 (1969): 83–103. (A series of papers devoted to the early history of Chinese logic reprinted fac-simile in Chmielewski 2009: 175–337).
Chmielewski, Janusz. 1979. “Concerning the Problem of Analogical Reasoning in Ancient China (Review Article).” Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 40.2: 65–78. [Reprinted fac-simile in Chmielewski 2009: 339–352]. (A review of Cikoski 1975 containing Chmielewski’ interpretation of analogical reasoning in China).
Chmielewski, Janusz. 2009. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Collected Papers on the Chinese Language and Logic. Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk Publishers. (Reprinted publications of Janusz Chmielewski including his works on Chinese logic.)
Cikoski, John S. 1975. “On Standards of Analogical Reasoning in the Late Chou.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 2.3: 325–357. (An attempt to interpret Chinese analogical thinking with modern mathematical concepts, such as boolean algebras and homomorphisms.)
De Fornel de La Laurencie, Martial-Marie-Paul. 1906. Logique générale et appliquée. Paris: Delagrave.
Forke, Alfred (tr.). 1922. Mê Ti, des Sozialethikers und seiner Schüler philosophische Werke (The philosophical works of the social ethicist Mo Di and his disciples). Berlin: Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger. (A German translation of the Mo zi.)
Fraser, Christopher J. 1999. Similarity and standards: Language, cognition, and action in Chinese and Western thought. PhD Thesis. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. (A study of the theoretical framework underlying classical Chinese philosophy of language, theory of action, and epistemology.)
Fraser, Christopher J. 2009. “The Mohist School.” In Bo Mou, ed., History of Chinese Philosophy (137–163). London/New York: Routledge. (A succinct yet comprehensive introduction to the philosophy of Mo zi.)
Fraser, Christopher J. 2017. “School of Names.” In Edward N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Online Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/school-names/. (An introduction to a group of Warring States period (479–221 BC) thinkers, including Hui Shi, who shared an interest in language and disputation and were often referred to as “sophists” or “logicians.”)
Fung, Yiu-Ming. 2009. “The school of names.” In Bo Mou, ed., History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 3 (164–188). London/New York: Routledge. (An introduction to a group of thinkers known as “School of Names” and often referred to as “sophists” or “logicians.”)
Graham, Angus Charles. 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. Hong Kong/London: The Chinese University Press/SOAS, University of London. (The standard introduction to Moist semantics and logic.)
Graham, Angus Charles. 1993. “Mo tzu 墨子.” In Michael Loewe, ed., Early Chinese Texts (336–341). Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. (A bibliographical notice on the treatise Mo zi 墨子 providing information about its contents, date of composition, text history, main editions and translations.)
Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. (A comprehensive study of the major philosophical schools of pre-Imperial China.)
Harbsmeier, Christoph. 1998. Language and Logic. In Joseph Needham and Christopher Cullen, eds., Kenneth Robinson (volume editor), Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 7, Pt. 1. (The volume provides a detailed overview of logical reflection in Ancient and early medieval China including a chapter on Moist logic).
Hu, Shi 胡適. 1919. An Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy中國哲學史大綱. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan. (A pioneering comprehensive study of ancient Chinese philosophy partly based on the author’s doctoral research conducted prior to 1917.)
Hu, Shih [Hu, Shi胡適]. 1922. The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China. 先秦名學史. Shanghai: The Oriental Book Company. (A pioneering work on the history of logic in China, including an interpretation of the “logical excerpts” found in the Mo zi 墨子.)
Knechtges, David R., and Chang, Taiping. 2014. Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature. A Reference Guide. Part 2. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Krushinskiĭ, Andrei Andreevich. 1988. “Teoretiko-kategornyĭ podkhod k semantike drevnekitaĭskikh klassicheskikh tekstov (An Approach to Semantics of the Classical Ancient Chinese Texts Based on Category Theory).” In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Scholarly Conference “Society and State in China,” 1 (73–77). Moscow: Nauka Publishers. (An attempt to interpret Chinese analogical inference with the help of the category theory.)
Kurtz, Joachim. 2011. The Discovery of Chinese Logic. Leiden/Boston: Brill. (A comprehensive study of the introduction of Western logic to China in the 17th–19th centuries and of the discovery of ancient Chinese logic in the 19th and 20th century.)
Lau, Din Cheuk. 1963. “On Mencius’ Use of the Method of Analogy in Argument.” Asia Major, n.s., 10: 173–194. (A study of the analogical arguments in Meng Ke’s treatise.)
Lau, Din Cheuk. 1970 (repr. 1983). Mencius. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Legge, James. 1875. The Chinese Classics Translated into English. Vol. 2: The life and works of Mencius. London: Trübner & Co.
Liang, Qichao 梁啟超. 1920. The “Moist Canons,” Collated and Annotated墨經校釋. Shanghai: Shangwu yinsuguan.
Liard, Louis. 1884 (repr. 1892). Logique (3e édition). Paris: G. Masson.
Liu, Yameng. 1996. “Three Issues in the Argumentative Conception of Early Chinese Discourse.” Philosophy East and West 46.1: 33–58.
Maspero, Henri. 1928. “Notes sur la logique de Mo-tseu et de son école.” T’oung Pao, Série 2, 25.1/2: 1–64. (A critical evaluation of interpretations of the Moist “logical” chapters by Chinese and Western authors containing a number of path-breaking observations concerning analogical arguments in this and other early Chinese philosophical texts.)
Masson-Oursel, Paul. 1912. “Esquisse d’une théorie comparée du sorite.” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 20.6: 810–824.
Masson-Oursel, Paul. 1917. “Études de logique comparée (Suite).” Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, 84: 59–76.
Mei, Yi-Pao. 1929. The Ethical and Political Works of Motse. London: Probsthain.
Pauthier, Guillaume. 1832. Le Ta-Hio, ou La grande Étude: ouvrage de Confucius et de son disciple Tseng-Tseu. Paris: l’Imprimerie d’Éverat.
Reding, Jean-Paul. 1985. Les fondements philosophiques de la rhétorique chez les sophistes grecs et chez les sophistes chinois. Berne: P. Lang. (A comparative study of the Chinese philosophical “School of Names” ming jia名家 and Greek Sophists).
Reding, Jean-Paul. 1986. “Analogical Reasoning in Early Chinese Philosophy.” Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques 40.1: 40–56. (A discussion of “argumentative analogies” in Chinese texts interpreted as mappings from domain of “exposition” to domain of “application”.)
Reding, Jean-Paul. 2004. “The Origin of Logic in China.” In Reding, Jean-Paul, ed., Comparative essays in early Greek and Chinese Rational Thinking (31–48). Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate. (A further development of ideas presented in Reding 1986.)
Spirin, Vladimir Semenovich. 1976. Postroenie drevnekitaĭskikh tekstov [Structure of ancient Chinese texts, in Russian]. Moscow: Nauka Publishers. (An attempt to study textual parallelisms in ancient Chinese texts forming particular structures.)
Spirin, Vladimir Semenovich. 1991. “Composition des texts chinois anciens”. Translation by Karine Chemla and Alexei Volkov. In Karine Chemla, Alexei Volkov, Vera [Dorofeeva-] Lichtmann, eds., Modèles et structures des textes chinois anciens. Les formalistes soviétiques en sinologie (Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident, no. 13): 31–58. Paris: PUV. (An abridged French translation of the first part of Spirin 1976.)
Sun, Yirang 孫詒讓. 1895 (repr. 2007). Leisurely Glosses on the Mo zi 墨子閒詁. Suzhou. [Reprinted by Beijing: Zhonghua shuju Publishers.]
Tang, Degang 唐德剛. 1977. “70% traditional, 30% Western. Memories of Mr Hu Shi and Oral History. Part 3. 七分傳統·三分洋貨. 回憶胡適之先生和口述歷史之三.” Chuanji wenxue 傳記文學 31.4: 55–62.
Volkov, Alexei K. 1987. “O metode analogii v kitaĭskoi matematike” (On the Method of Analogy in Chinese Mathematics, in Russian). In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Scholarly Conference “Society and State in China,” 1: 113–117. Moscow: Nauka Publishers. (An attempt to provide a formal interpretation of the logic used by the compilers of ancient Chinese mathematical treatises.)
Volkov, Alexei. 1991. “Recherches sur les structures des textes chinois anciens en URSS” (essay review). In Karine Chemla, Alexei Volkov, Vera [Dorofeeva-]Lichtmann, eds., Modèles et structures des textes chinois anciens. Les formalistes soviétiques en sinologie (Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident, no. 13): 11–30. Paris: PUV. (A general overview of the works on the structures of ancient Chinese texts published by V.S. Spirin, A.M. Karapetyants, A.I. Kobzev, V.V. Dorofeeva-Lichtmann and other Soviet sinologists in 1960s–1980s.)
Volkov, Alexei. 1992. “Analogical Reasoning in Ancient China: Some Examples.” In Karine Chemla, ed., Regards obliques sur l’argumentation en Chine (Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident, no. 14): 15–48. Paris: PUV. (A study of analogical reasoning in Chinese philosophical and mathematical texts.)
Volkov, Alexei. 1994. “Transformation of Objects in Ancient Chinese Mathematics and Their Evolution.” In Viviane Alleton and Alexei Volkov, eds., Notions et perceptions du changement en Chine, 36 (133–148). Paris: Collège de France, Mémoires de l’Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises. (A study of analogical reasoning in Chinese mathematical texts compiled prior to the late first millennium CE.)
Volkov, Alexei. 2008. “Raisonnement par analogie dans les mathématiques chinoises.” In Marie-José Durand-Richard, ed., Le statut de l’analogie dans la démarche scientifique, Perspective historique [The Status of the Analogy in Scientific Work: A Historical perspective]: 61–95. Paris: l’Harmattan. (A further elaboration of the ideas presented in Volkov 1994.)
Volkov, Alexei. 2018. “Analogical reasoning in early Chinese mathematics.” In Ivan Gros and Thierry Lucas, eds., LOGOS ET ANALOGIA: La pensée analogique entre Orient et Occident (137–157). Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-l’Harmattan. (A discussion of application of analogical reasoning in ancient Chinese mathematics.)
Waley, Arthur. 1939. Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China. London: Allen and Unwin.
Wilhelm, Hellmut. 1973. [Review of Lau 1970 (1983)]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 36.2: 489–490
Zhang, Taiyan章太炎 [= Zhang, Binglin 章炳麟]. 1910. Balance for weighing discourses on national past 國故論衡. [Shanghai:] Guoxue jiangxihui 國學講習會/Kyoto: Shūkōsha 秀光社.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Volkov, A.K. (2020). Analogy. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29033-7_8
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)