首页> 外文期刊>History and Philosophy of Logic >The Later Mohists and Logic
【24h】

The Later Mohists and Logic

机译:后来的墨家与逻辑

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This article is a study of the Later Mohists' ‘Lesser Selection (Xiǎoq )’, which, more than any other early Chinese text, seems to engage in the study of logic. I focus on a procedure that the Mohists called móu . Arguments by móu are grounded in linguistic parallelism, implying perhaps that the Mohists were on the way to a formal analysis of argumentation. However, their main aim was to head off arguments by móu that targeted their own doctrines, and if their argument succeeds then it entails that linguistic parallelism can never ground a cogent argument. In a way, this committed them to the view that formal logic cannot work, but the fact that they did not pursue this line of investigation was by no means inevitable. One consequence of this study is that the Later Mohists conducted their logical work by studying the behaviour of terms and verb phrases, and did not identify the sentence as a significant linguistic unit. This tends to confirm Chad Hansen's generalisation that early Chinese philosophers did not posit sentences or other sentence-like entities such as propositions, beliefs, or laws. Focusing on subsentential expressions did not stop the Mohists from addressing genuinely logical issues, but it may help explain the fact that they never developed a conception of logical structure. This study includes the complete Chinese text of the ‘Lesser Selection’ and a translation in English.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2010.500920
机译:本文是对后来的墨家的“小选择”(XiÇŽoq)的研究,该文本比其他任何早期的中文文本都更多地参与了逻辑研究。我关注的是墨家称为mÃu的程序。穆的论证是基于语言学的平行性,这暗示着墨家可能正在对论证进行正式分析。但是,他们的主要目的是阻止针对自己的学说的穆阿人的论证,如果他们的论证成功,那么就意味着语言并行性永远不会扎根有力的论据。从某种意义上说,这使他们相信形式逻辑是行不通的,但是他们没有追求这一研究路线这一事实绝不是不可避免的。这项研究的结果是,后墨者通过研究术语和动词短语的行为进行了逻辑工作,而没有将句子确定为重要的语言单元。这倾向于证实乍得·汉森(Chad Hansen)的概括,即早期中国哲学家并未提出句子或其他类似句子的实体,例如命题,信仰或法律。专注于句子表达并不能阻止墨家解决真正的逻辑问题,但这可能有助于解释它们从未发展出逻辑结构概念的事实。这项研究包括“小选择”的完整中文文本和英语翻译。查看全文下载全文相关变量var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”,services_compact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati ,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more“,发布编号:” ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2010.500920

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号