This note engages with Michael Beaney’s discussion of Chinese logic in his recently published book The Joy of Chinese Philosophy by addressing two related issues: the reception of the Chinese translation of ‘logic’ as luoji 邏輯, and the methodology for studying Chinese logic. We argue that the adoption of luoji 邏輯 as the Chinese translation was a complex process influenced by multiple factors, and we provide additional historical context. In addition, while we agree with Beaney’s position on usin…
Read moreThis note engages with Michael Beaney’s discussion of Chinese logic in his recently published book The Joy of Chinese Philosophy by addressing two related issues: the reception of the Chinese translation of ‘logic’ as luoji 邏輯, and the methodology for studying Chinese logic. We argue that the adoption of luoji 邏輯 as the Chinese translation was a complex process influenced by multiple factors, and we provide additional historical context. In addition, while we agree with Beaney’s position on using Western logical theory to study Chinese texts, we wish to emphasize that the particular theory chosen matters. Current research in the field highlights the importance of this point and suggests that we should carefully consider which method is most appropriate for such studies.
