Abstract

Thinkers from the Chinese and Greco-Roman traditions posit that disparate objects throughout the cosmos have mutual affinities. In the Stoic tradition, such affinities are explained through “sympathy.” In the Chinese tradition, the explanatory principle is often called ganying 感應 (resonance). In addition, both traditions use similar philosophical strategies when discussing these concepts. Thinkers cite natural correspondences, placing them in parallel lists as evidence for philosophical truths. On the surface, the analogous concepts and strategies hint that these thinkers share similar philosophical goals. However, analysis of the role natural correspondences play in argumentation discovers fundamental differences between the two traditions. The focus on particular arguments instead of broader cosmological trends offers a different perspective for comparative research, and the conclusions raise questions concerning how scholarship should analyze philosophical trends in early China.