The present article provides an introduction to classical Chinese logic, a term which refers to ancient discourses that were developed before the arrival of significant external influences and which flourished in China until the first unification of China, during the Qin Dynasty . Taking as its premise that logic implies both universal and culturally conditioned elements, the author describes the historical background of Chinese logic, the main schools of Chinese logical thought, the current state (...) of research in this area and the crucial concepts and methods applied in classical Chinese logic. The close link between Chinese logic and the Chinese language is also stressed. (shrink)

In this essay, I examine the nature of Chinese logic and Chinese sciences in the history of China. I conclude that Chinese logic is essentially analogical, and that the Chinese did not have theoretical sciences. I then connect these together and explain why the Chinese failed to develop theoretical sciences, even though they enjoyed an advanced civilization and great scientific and technological innovations. This is because a deductive system of logic is necessary (...) for the development of theoretical sciences, and analogical logic cannot provide the deductive connections between a theory and empirical observations required by a theoretical science. This also offers a more satisfactory answer to the long-standing Needham Problem. (shrink)

First encounters : Jesuit logica in the late Ming and early Qing -- Haphazard overtures : logic in nineteenth-century Protestant writings -- Great expectations : Yan Fu and the discovery of European logic -- Spreading the word : logic in late Qing education and popular discourse -- Heritage unearthed : the discovery of Chinese logic -- Textbooks on logic adapted from Japanese, 1902-1911 -- Logical terms in early-twentieth-century textbooks.

Dipping in Chinese waterspulled and pushed by Mowe see how Zhuangzi caught uslike the happy fish we knowwe follow their flowwords matching as they sor.

This paper discusses the topics, goals, values and methods of Chinese logic. It holds that the goal of the research in Chinese logic is to reveal its structure, content, rules, and essential character, as well as to reveal both similarities and differences between Chinese and foreign logic. The value of the research is to carry forward and develop the outstanding heritage of Chinese logic. Its method is to annotate original works of (...) class='Hi'>Chinese ancient logic with the tools of modern language and logic in order to reveal both the particular nature and the universal qualities of Chinese logic. The method also explores the differences and similarities between Chinese and foreign logic. In recent years, research in Chinese logic has developed considerably; it has also logged many important achievements. But there are many different views about the complexity and long-term goals of the research. Future research will build on the merits of different kinds of logic, promote Chinese logic, and increase communication between Chinese logic and foreign logic. (shrink)

The present chapter sketches the adoption of logic in late nineteenth and early twentieth century China. Addressing both conceptual and institutional aspects of this process, it contextualizes the raising interest in the discipline among Qing scholars and Republican intellectuals. Arranged largely chronologically, it delineates the successive periods in the reception of major works of and intellectual trends in the field. It introduces the most influential scholars promoting a public discourse on logic in the final years of the empire, (...) but also the ever more professional agents who participated in the ensuing establishment of a modern institutional framework for studies in logic like universities, departments of logic, academic societies, journals etc. While at the beginning, these people were mostly no trained logicians, progress in the establishment of academic logic in the 1930s provided the conditions for the formation of the first Chinese specialists in the field who were often internationally trained and soon to engage in cutting-edge research. In some contrast, academic discourse on logic well into the 1930s was dominated by exaggerated social and political expectations, not least due to the successive influence on intellectuals of inductionist scientism in the first decades of the twentieth century, of an inflated pragmatist notion of logic in the 1920s, and of an overly simplistic “antiformalist” notion of logic propagated by (vulgar-)Marxist historical dialecticians in the 1930s. The arrival of scientific logic also went in tandem with a renewed interest in studies in the traditional Buddhist “science of reasons” (yinming, hetuvidyā, “Buddhist logic”) and spurred the search for contributions to the field of logic in the record of inherited Chinese literature, a development which soon led to the common acceptance of the existence of genuinely Chinese traditions of logic. It is eventually a peculiarity of the Chinese reception of logic that since around 1920, less than two decades after the first modern translations of textbooks on traditional syllogistics, the visit of Bertrand Russell – one of the fathers of mathematical logic – fueled the spread of this new approach to logic which has eventually changed its face for good. Designed as a historical survey, this chapter is a general account on the major contributions to the field by Chinese scholars of the time and has to forego detailed discussions. (shrink)

History and Philosophy of Logic, Volume 33, Issue 3, Page 293-296, August 2012.

Ancient Chinese logicians presupposed no fixed order in the world. Things are changing all the time. Time, then, plays a crucial role in the structure of Chinese logic. This article uses the concept of "subjective time" and the Leibnizian concept of "possible worlds" to analyze the structure of logic in the Later Mohist Canon and in the logical reasoning of other early Chinese philosophers. The author argues that Chinese logic is structured in the (...) time of the now. This time is subjective and "spreads out" to more than one possible world. Chinese logicians had to deal with relationships in not only a single world but also more than one "possible world." The aim of Chinese logical reasoning is not to represent any universal truth but to point out (zhi ) a particular-world-related truth, or, in other words, the harmony of relations among particulars in a particular field at a single moment. Therefore, a valid Chinese logical argument represents only the beauty of harmony among possible worlds at a given moment. The harmony represented by Chinese logic brings to light a high level of aesthetic order in a world that is always changing. (shrink)

The author of this paper argues that ancient Chinese thinkers practiced an alternative logic that is significantly different from Aristotelian logic. The paper has two objectives: 1) to clarify what Chinese logic looks like; 2) to re-evaluate the wisdom in classic texts with a clear understanding of Chinese logic. The author uses two major approaches in her reasoning: an etymological approach and logic of sets. An etymological study shows that Chinese pictographic (...) characters were created according to sets - the collections of characters. The author examines how Chinese pictographic language shapes ancient Chinese thinkers’ thinking patterns and provides evidence that the habit of thinking in sets could naturally shape a practice of a primary logic of sets. Borrowing some expressions and symbols from modern Set Theory, the author demonstrates how the logic of sets was practiced by Gongsun Longzi, Confucius, Zhuangzi, as well as Chinese mathematicians in their teachings and reasoning. A theory of sets provides help with a much better understanding about reasoning methods in ancient Chinese thinkers’ minds, so that one can evaluate their wisdom fairly. Understanding Chinese logic as it is provides a fruitful opening for new research in Comparative Philosophy. Keywords: set, etymology, membership, Chinese logic, and comparative philosophy. (shrink)

This article examines two syllogistic arguments contrasted in an ancient Chinese book, the Mozi, which expounds doctrines of the Mohist school of philosophers. While the arguments seem to have the same form, one of them is valid but the other is not. To explain this difference, the article uses English plural constructions to formulate the arguments. Then it shows that the one-horse argument is valid because it has a valid argument form, the plural cousin of a standard form of (...) valid categorical syllogisms, and argues that the two-horse argument involves equivocal uses of a key predicate that has the distributive/nondistributive ambiguity. In doing so, the article discusses linguistic differences between Chinese and English and explains why the logic of plural constructions is applicable to Chinese arguments that involve no plural constructions. (shrink)

The present article aims to expose some aspects of the specific features of classical Chinese analogisms. First, it exposes the supposition that this type of analogism did not focus exclusively on forms without considering their content, that is, that it was linguistically and semantically determined. Second, it also aims to show that classical Chinese analogies are based on structural relations between the objects in question, which constitute the similarity of two types of things that share certain attributes. This (...) article additionally sheds light on the question of how and why the structure underlying these relations represents a semantic and axiological referential framework that functions as the... (shrink)

In this article we discuss Zhang Shizhao’s famous essay “Lun Fanyi Mingyi〈論翻譯名義〉” (On the Meanings of Names in Translation), which played a key role in establishing what is now the standard translation of ‘logic’ into Chinese, sketching the historical context and analyzing and evaluating the argument he gives for providing a phonemic rather than semantic translation.

Searle’s Chinese Room Argument (CRA) has been the object of great interest in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and cognitive science since its initial presentation in ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’ in 1980. It is by no means an overstatement to assert that it has been a main focus of attention for philosophers and computer scientists of many stripes. It is then especially interesting to note that relatively little has been said about the detailed logic of the argument, (...) whatever significance Searle intended CRA to have. The problem with the CRA is that it involves a very strong modal claim, the truth of which is both unproved and highly questionable. So it will be argued here that the CRA does not prove what it was intended to prove. (shrink)

Searle’s Chinese room argument (CRA) was recently charged as being unsound because it makes a logical error. It is shown here that this charge is based on a misinterpretation of the modal scope of a major premise of the CRA and that the CRA does not commit the logical error with which it is charged.

John Searle’s Chinese room argument is a celebrated thought experiment designed to refute the hypothesis, popular among artificial intelligence scientists and philosophers of mind, that “the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind”. Since its publication in 1980, the CRA has evoked an enormous amount of debate about its implications for machine intelligence, the functionalist philosophy of mind, theories of consciousness, etc. Although the general consensus among commentators is that the CRA is flawed, and not withstanding the popularity of (...) the systems reply in some quarters, there is remarkably little agreement on exactly how and why it is flawed. A newcomer to the controversy could be forgiven for thinking that the bewildering collection of diverse replies to Searle betrays a tendency to unprincipled, ad hoc argumentation and, thereby, a weakness in the opposition’s case. In this paper, treating the CRA as a prototypical example of a ‘destructive’ thought experiment, I attempt to set it in a logical framework, which allows us to systematise and classify the various objections. Since thought experiments are always posed in narrative form, formal logic by itself cannot fully capture the controversy. On the contrary, much also hinges on how one translates between the informal everyday language in which the CRA was initially framed and formal logic and, in particular, on the specific conception of possibility that one reads into the logical formalism. (shrink)

The study of dialectical logic has a history of nearly one hundred years in China. It is significant for understanding both the growth of Chinese logic and the Sinicization of Marxism to review dialectical logic in the context of introducing the study of Marxism in China. Debates about dialectical logic in Chinese academic circles involve not only the problems of logic itself, but more importantly the understanding of Marxist philosophy. In the 1920s and (...) 1930s, some Marxist researchers in China were influenced by the philosophers and logicians of the former Soviet Union, and they came very close to equating dialectical logic with Marxist dialectics. They also identified the formal logic originating from ancient Greece as metaphysics, praising the former and criticizing the latter. In the upsurge of Marxist philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s, Chinese logicians carried out normal and formal academic research on dialectical logic. During the period from the end of 1970s to the end of 1990s, the research and teaching of dialectical logic in China reached its heyday, and logicians performed comprehensive and detailed research on some critical issues, including the basic laws of dialectical logic, which they tried to formalize. Since the beginning of the 21st century, dialectical logic has ceased to prosper and has faded from the core field of the discipline of logic, although some honorable scholars still persist in studying it. (shrink)

In this book Prof. Cheng deals with its principle doctrines, its philosophy and its influence on.

This book is a companion to logical thought and logical thinking in China with a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective. It introduces the basic ideas and theories of Chinese thought in a comprehensive and analytical way. It covers thoughts in ancient, pre-modern and modern China from a historical point of view. It deals with topics in logical (including logico-philosophical) concepts and theories rooted in China, Indian and Western Logic transplanted to China, and the development of logical studies in contemporary (...) China and other Chinese communities. The term “philosophy of logic” or “logico-philosophical thought” is used in this book to represent “logical thought” in a broad sense which includes thinking on logical concepts, modes of reasoning, and linguistic ideas related to logic and philosophical logic. Unique in its approach, the book uses Western logical theories and philosophy of language, Chinese philology, and history of ideas to deal with the basic ideas and major problems in logical thought and logical thinking in China. In doing so, it advances the understanding of the lost tradition in Chinese philosophical studies. (shrink)

This book presents a panoramic and extensive exploration of Chinese political philosophy, examining key political problems of the past, and the thinkers who addressed them. As the reader will discover, China’s traditional political philosophy is one with distinctive national characteristics and ideals. Therefore, the book helps to clarify the evolution of Chinese political thought, while also investigating fundamental political issues throughout the country’s history. The book offers a unique resource for researchers and graduate students in the fields of (...) political science, philosophy, and history, as well as ordinary readers who are interested in China’s traditional and political culture. (shrink)

The Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic is the first general overview of Chinese logical philosophy in English, presumably providing students and researchers of Chinese thought in the Engl...

I address the problem of whether philosophy can be international by its claim to represent rationality, hence universality. I argue in favor of this claim by focusing on the special logic thesis in Chinese philosophy. This thesis holds that a different type of logic must be used when studying the Chinese texts. I argue at length against the special logic thesis by examining the problem of human nature in the Confucian philosophers Mencius, Hsün Tzu and (...) Kao Tzu. I show how their arguments can be reconstructed as inductive analogical arguments and as deductive argument. I then broaden the notion of the logic of argumentation into a discussion of metaphysical anti‐essentialism and underdetermination in order to resolve the problem of human nature and also to show how the same types of logical analysis (more generally construed) can be applied to the arguments from these Confucian philosophers. Under my treatment, Kao Tzu, somewhat surprisingly, turns out to provide the most insight. (shrink)

This dissertation is a comparative study of Aristotelian and Chinese logic. I briefly overview the reports of difficulties in understanding that derives from cultural differences. I claim that these difficulties not only result from the fact that concepts in each language fail to match properly, but also from the fact that the logical spaces themselves are structured differently. Aristotelian logic is based on the structure of a classificatory system---a hierarchical structure of names for kinds of things organized (...) into genera/species. Chinese logic is based on a Chinese binary system---a yin-yang structure of associative relations. ;I discuss the difficulties of translating the first three chapters of Matthew Lipman's Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery---one of a series of novels used in the Philosophy for Children Project---into Chinese. These chapters discuss the logical relations constituting the Aristotelian Square of Opposition. I find that most translation problems result from the fact that the logical structures of these two languages fail to match. ;I report my research on the responses of American and Chinese school children to reading chapter one of Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery , one in the original English version and the other in Chinese. The study of discussions among older children offers evidence for my claim that logical spaces of Western and Chinese thinking are structured differently, but the study of discussions among younger children gives a hope that there is a chance for there to be communication between the two very different ways of thinking. ;The conclusion is that Aristotelian logic and Chinese logic have two very different objectives, and as a consequence, different patterns for constructing logical relations. These two patterns represent two thinking models. The former is like a tree. It represents a finite number of things according to a presumed order. The latter is like a net; from any point on the net, one can link to any number of related points in an ever-changing world. The possibility of a mutually beneficial rapprochement between Chinese and Aristotelian logic depends on whether we can lay out a way for each side to understand the other in a common discourse. (shrink)