Logic in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs attention from an expert in China. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject China (or its Portal) may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)

Logic in China plays a particularly interesting role in the history of logic due to its repression and abandonment compared to the strong ancient adoption and continued development of the study of logic in Europe, India, and the Islamic world.

Contents

Mohist logic [edit]

A man in black armor standing in front of a rocket, attached to a stick, with the stick being held up by two X shaped wooden brackets.
History of science and
technology in China
Inventions
Discoveries
By era
Han Dynasty
Tang Dynasty
Song Dynasty
People's Republic of China
Present-day China
This box:

In China, a contemporary of Confucius, Mozi, "Master Mo", is credited with founding the Mohist school, whose canons dealt with issues relating to valid inference and the conditions of correct conclusions. However, they were nonproductive and not integrated into Chinese science or mathematics.

The Mohist school of Chinese philosophy contained an approach to logic and argumentation that stresses rhetorical analogies over mathematical reasoning, and is based on the three fa, or methods of drawing distinctions between kinds of things.

One of the schools that grew out of Mohism, the Logicians, are credited by some scholars for their early investigation of formal logic.

The repression of the study of logic [edit]

During the subsequent Qin Dynasty, the rule of Legalism repressed this Mohist line of investigation, which has been said to have disappeared in China until the introduction of Indian philosophy and Indian logic by Buddhists.[1] A prominent scholar suggests that the version assembled for the Imperial Library of the Han Dynasty would probably have been as disorganised as the current extant text, and thus would have only been 'intermittently intelligible,' as it is for current readers who do not consult a critical edition.[2] Disagreeing with Hajime Nakamura, Graham argues the school of Neo-Taoism maintained some interest in the Canons, although they may already have some of the terminology difficult to understand.[3] Before the end of the Sui Dynasty, a shortened version of Mozi appeared, which appears to have replaced the Han edition.[4] Although the original Mozi had been preserved in the Taoist, and became known once more in the 1552 Lu edition and 1553 Tang edition,[5] the damage was done: the dialectical chapters (as well as the military chapters) were considered incomprehensible.[6] Nevertheless with the rise of Chinese critical textual scholarship, the book benefited from explanatory and critical commentaries: first, by Bi Yuan, and his assistant, Sun Xingyan; another commentary by Wang Chong, which has not survived; 'the first special study,'[7] by Zhang Huiyan; a republication of Part B by Wu Rulun. However, the summit of this late Imperial scholarship, according to Graham, was the 'magnificent' commentary of Sun Yirang, which 'threw open the sanctum of the Canons to all comers.[8] Graham summarises the arduous textual history of the Canons by arguing that the Canons were neglected throughout most of China's history; but he attributes this fact to 'bibliographical' accidents, rather than political repression, like Nakamura.[9]

Buddhist logic [edit]

Main article: Buddhist logic

The study of logic in China was revived following the transmission of Buddhism in China, which introduced the Buddhist logical tradition that began in Indian logic. Buddhist logic has been often misunderstood by scholars of Chinese Buddhism because they lack the necessary background in Indian logic.[10]

References [edit]

 Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (March 2013)
  1. ^ Hajime Nakamura, Philip P. Wiener (1964). Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India-China-Tibet-Japan. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-0078-8.
  2. ^ A C Graham: Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science, p. 65
  3. ^ A C Graham: Later Mohist Logics, Ethics and Science, p 66.
  4. ^ A C Graham 2003: Later Mohist Logics, Ethics and Science, p 68
  5. ^ A C Graham 2003: Later Mohist Logics, Ethics and Science, p. 69
  6. ^ A C Graham 2003: Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science, p. 69-70.
  7. ^ A C Graham 2003: Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science, p. 70
  8. ^ ibid.
  9. ^ A C Graham 2003: Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science, p. 72.
  10. ^ See Eli Franco, "Xuanzang's proof of idealism." Horin 11 (2004): 199-212.

Bibliography [edit]

  • Henryk Greniewski, Olgierd Wojtasiewicz, From the History of Chinese Logic. Studia Logica Volume 4, Number 1 1956. P. 241-243
  • Chmielewski, Janusz. "Notes on Early Chinese Logic." Rocznik Orientalistyczny 26.1 (1962): 7-22; 26.2 (1963): 91-105; 27.1 (1963): 103-21; 28.2 (1965): 87-111; 29.2 (1965): 117-38; 30.1 (1966): 31-52; 31.1 (1968): 117-36; 32.2 (1969): 83-103.
  • Graham, A C 2003: Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. Hong Kong, Chinese University Press.
  • Harbsmeier, Christopher. Language and Logic. Volume 7, Part 1 of Science and Civilisation in China, edited by Joseph Needham. Cambridge UK, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • Hansen, Chad. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Michigan Studies on China. Ann Arbor, 1983.
  • Lucas, Thierry, 1993, “Hui Shih and Kung Sun Lung: an Approach from Contemporary Logic,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 20.2: 211-55.
  • Lucas Thierry, "Later Mohist logic, Lei, classes and sorts," Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32: 349-366 (2005)
  • Spirin V.S.O "third" and "fifth" in terms of the logic of ancient China, Far Vostok.M., 1961.
  • Krushinsky AA Names and reality in ancient logic and methodology. (Review), Modern historical research: science in the traditional collection Kitae.Referativny M. 1987.S.88-105.
  • Zhou Yunchzhi. Milestones in the development of ancient Chinese logic min bian, its key features and real achievements,Rationalist Tradition and Modernity: China. Moscow, 1993. P.152-177

External links [edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logic_in_China&oldid=554527323"