Jinmei Yuan

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

To translate the Aristotelian square of opposition into Chinese requires restructuring the Aristotelian system of genus-species into the Chinese way of classification and understanding of the focus-field relationship. The feature of the former is on a tree model, while that of the later is on the focusfield model. Difficulties arise when one tries to show contraries betweenA- type and E-type propositions in the Aristotelian square of opposition in Chinese, because there is no clear distinction between universal and particular in a focus-field structure of thinking. If there could be a chance to discuss the analytic identity between the two logical systems, then it might be only constituted during a face to face conversation in the present, or, in other words, in the translation of particular propositions (singular subjective,I-type, andO-type propositions) in a particular case. The best hope for a translator is that in the actual temporally situated practice,now he or she might find a temporary way to map the concepts of one to the other with relatively little loss of structure

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

This article is an effort to improve understanding between Moist and Aristotelian logics on analogy. I argue that Chinese logic can neither fit in Aristotelian deductive framework, nor completely fit in Aristotelian inductive framework. One of the major reasoning skills that ancient Chinese logicians applied is analogical reasoning. Having examined thirteen Moist analogical propositions in a Moist text, the Da Qu 〈大取〉from the perspective of finding rationales (li 理) among things, I conclude that if the rationales can be found in a changing world, then Chinese logicians seek for the “beauty of creative thinking” in the process of argumentation.

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