Contemporary interpretations of Zhuangzi’s 莊子 philosophy as adumbrating a relativist position are legion. However, what is the scope and nature of the relativism that can be gleaned from a comprehensive analysis of relevant passages in the Zhuangzi? In this essay, I shall explain Zhuangzi’s alleged relativist position as motivated from a primary concern about disagreement. He in effect claims that since any disputant can foresee her assertion to be refuted by an opponent, the recourse to a higher tribunal in adjudicating (...) the debate is futile. The consequence of an apparent lack of justification for assertion is, in my opinion, what needs elucidation. For example, is “truth relativism” an apt label for the nature of assertion in a debate without the verdict of a judge? Or, is it more appropriate to shun the concept of truth altogether in our explanation? I deem the contemporary explanation of Zhuangzi’s relativism either trivializes disputation or fails to account for the difference between a claim’s being right and being acceptable. Hence, I shall argue that without the intrusion of a judge as an arbiter of truth, the kind of disputation Zhuangzi practices promulgates faultless disagreement, which does not appeal to the correctness of any perspective in a comparative or absolute sense. In this understanding, Zhuangzi’s advice of harmonizing with both right and wrong is indeed a viable alternative to relativism and dogmatism, both of which do not properly take heed of the point of disagreeing in a disputation. (shrink)

The so-called “white horse is not horse” debate, or “white horse” dialogical argument, is beyond doubt the most famous case of argumentation in the history of Classical Chinese philosophy. The somewhat disorienting statement at the center of this debate is discussed at length by two anonymous fictive characters, a persuader and their opponent, in the ‘Báimǎ lùn’ 白馬論. The ‘Báimǎ lùn’ usually appears as the first chapter in the received text Gōngsūn Lóngzǐ 公孫龍子. The Gōngsūn Lóngzǐ is a composite collection (...) of heterogeneous materials in six chapters. The collection includes an anecdotal preface, three partially incomplete and/or corrupted dialogues, and two short and extremely intricate treatises. In particular, the dialogues included in the collection are structured in a fairly similar way and focus on what have been defined as paradoxes or sophisms belonging to the repertoire of a rather loose group of thinkers, the so-called Logicians or Chinese “Sophists”, allegedly active during the Warring States period. (shrink)