Chapter 11 Chapter Eleven

There are six chapters in "Mozi": "Jing Shang", "Jing Xia", "Jing Shuo Shang", "Jing Shuo Xia", "Da Qu" and "Xiao Qu". The value of logic. "Jing 1" and "Jing Xia" are definitions of logic, morality, mathematics and natural science. "Jing Shuo 1" and "Jing Shuo 2" are explanations of the definitions in the first two chapters. "Great Acquisition" and "Small Acquisition" discussed several logical issues.All these six articles have a general purpose, which is to establish the Mohist point of view and refute the debates of famous scholars through logical means.Together, these six chapters are usually called "Mojing".

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Zhuangzi discussed two levels of knowledge in "Qiwulun".On the first level, he proved the relativity of things, reaching the same conclusion as Huishi's.But at the second level, he surpassed Huishi.On the first level, he agrees with famous scholars and criticizes common sense from a higher level.But at the second level, he turned around and criticized famous scholars from a higher level point of view.Therefore, Taoism also refutes the debates of famous scholars, but the arguments used by Taoism are logically higher than the debates of famous scholars.The debates of Taoism and the debates of famous scholars both require the effort of reflective thinking to understand.Both directions are contrary to the norm of common sense.

But on the other hand, there are philosophers of common sense, such as Mohists and some Confucians.Although the two differ in many ways, they agree with each other on this point of pragmatism.In the process of refuting the debates of famous scholars, the two developed epistemological and logical theories along roughly the same line of thought in order to defend common sense.These theories can be found in the "Mo Jing" in Mohism, and in the "Rectification of Names" in "Xunzi" in Confucianism.Xunzi was one of the greatest Confucianists in the pre-Qin period, and we will talk about him in chapter thirteen.

The theory of knowledge in the "Mojing" is a simple realism.it thinks.People have the ability to know, and it is "knowledge, not need to know" ("Jing Shuo Shang").That is to say, people have the ability to know, but only this ability does not necessarily have knowledge.This is because, in order to have knowledge, the cognitive ability must also come into contact with the object of knowledge. "Those who know are able to look at things because they have known them" (ibid.), that is to say, only when the cognitive ability comes into contact with the object of knowledge and can obtain its image can it become knowledge.In addition to the sensory organs of cognition, such as visual organs and auditory organs, there is also the organ of thinking: the heart, which is called "(intimate heart)" (no such word: ocr), "(intimate heart) is also based on its knowledge to discuss things" ( ibid).In other words, the impressions of external things conveyed to people through the senses must be interpreted with the heart.

"Mojing" also classified knowledge.According to the source of knowledge, knowledge is divided into three categories: one is from the knower's personal experience; the other is from authoritative teaching (that is, from hearsay or literature); Push the unknown from the known).According to the various objects of knowledge, knowledge is divided into four categories: knowledge of name, knowledge of reality, knowledge of coincidence, and knowledge of behavior. We will remember: name, reality, and the relationship between name and reality are all of special interest to famous artists.According to the "Mo Jing", "So it is called, it is named; so called, it is real." ("Jing Shuo Shang") For example: "This is a table." "Table" is a name, so it is called "this"; "this" is a reality, so it is called "this".In terms of Western logic, the name is the object of the proposition, and the real is the subject of the proposition.

The "Mojing" divides names into three categories: Da Ming, class names, and private names. "Name: 'Thing', Da Ye, the name that must be treated if there is reality. The 'horse' of life, the kind; if it is true, it must be the name. The 'Zang' of life, private; it is the name. , stop at reality.” ("Jing Shuo Shang") That is to say, "things" are names (common names), and all "facts" must use this name. "Horse" is a class name, and all "real" of this class must use this name. "Zang" (person's name) is a private name, and this name is only used for this "real".

The knowledge of coincidence is to know which name coincides with which reality.For example, to say the sentence "This is a table" requires the knowledge of the name and reality.With this kind of knowledge, one knows the "coupling of name and reality" (ibid.), that is, name and reality are paired with each other. Knowledge of behavior is knowledge of how to do a specific thing.It is equivalent to what Americans call "know-how". Most of the "Xiaoqu" chapter is used to discuss "debate".It said: "A debater will distinguish between right and wrong, judge the order of chaos, clarify similarities and differences, observe the truth of names and facts, deal with pros and cons, and resolve suspicions. The comparison. Use names to give facts, use words to express ideas, use words to release, use similarities to obtain, and use similarities to give.”

The first half of this passage is the purpose and function of argumentation, and the second half is the method of argumentation. The "Xiaoqu" chapter also said that there are seven methods of debate: "Those who are possible are not exhaustive. Those who are false are not the same today. Those who follow are the law. Those who are effective are the law. Therefore, in the middle If it is not effective, then it is not; this is the effect. Those who dispel things, use other things to clarify them. Those who pretend to be. Comparing words and doing everything. Those who support things say: Ziran, If I want to be alone, I can’t do that? Those who push it mean that what they don’t take is the same as what they take. It’s the same for those who say “yes”; those who say “I mean” are different. "Or" means a particular proposition. "Jin" means a universal proposition. "False" means a hypothetical proposition, assuming a situation that has not happened yet. "Effect" means taking the law. If the cause and effect match, it is the real cause; if the cause and effect do not match, then it is not the real cause. This is the method of effect. The method of "Pi (依)" is to use one thing to explain another thing. The method of "侔" It is a question of systematically and exhaustively comparing the two series. The method of "aiding" is to say: "You can do this, why can't I alone? "The method of "push" is to attribute the same thing to the unknown as to the known. It has been said that the other [is] the same, how can I say that it is different?

The method of "effectiveness" in this paragraph is also the "letting out with words" in the previous paragraph.The method of "pushing" in this paragraph is also the "take by kind, give by kind" in the previous paragraph.These are two extremely important methods, roughly equivalent to the deductive and inductive methods of Western logic. Before further explaining these two methods, let me first talk about the so-called "thus" in the Mojing.It says: "Therefore, what you get is what you get" ("Jing 1"), that is to say, there is "letting go".A phenomenon becomes a phenomenon.It also divides "Gu" into "Big Gu" and "Small Fang". "A small reason, it is not necessary to have it, and it is not necessary to have it." "The big reason is that if there is something, it must be, but if there is nothing, it must be otherwise." ("Jing Shuo Shang") The so-called "small reason" in the Mojing is obviously the so-called "necessary cause" of modern logic; the so-called "big reason" in the Mojing is obviously the so-called "necessary and sufficient cause" of modern logic.Modern logic also distinguishes another kind of reason, that is, sufficient reason, which can be said to be "necessary for existence, probable or otherwise for nothing", but Mohism did not see this kind of reason.

In modern logical reasoning, to know whether a general proposition is true or false, it is tested by facts or by experiments.For example.To determine that a certain bacterium is the cause of a certain disease, the way to test it is to first assume the general proposition "A bacterium is the cause of B disease" as a formula, and then conduct experiments to see whether the assumed cause really produces the expected result.produced.It is the cause; if not produced, it is not.This is deductive reasoning, which is the so-called "effect" method in the Mojing.Because, assuming a general proposition is a formula, it is assuming that it is a "law", and conducting experiments with it is to "imitate" its "law".The assumed cause produces the expected result, which is "the effect of the cause".If it doesn't happen, it means "ineffective".In this way, it is possible to test whether a story is true or false, and to decide whether a story is a major story or a minor story.

As for another method of reasoning, that is, the method of "push", it can be illustrated by the assertion that "every man is mortal".We all make this judgment because we know that everyone who is past is dead.It is also known that present and future people are of the same kind as past people.So we come to the general conclusion: all men are mortal.In this inductive reasoning, we used the "push" method.Everyone in the past was mortal, this is known.Everyone in the present is mortal, and everyone in the future will be mortal. This is unknown.Therefore, to say that "all men are mortal" is to attribute the known to the unknown of the same kind, that is, "give what they do not take the same as what they take."We can do this because "it is the same as saying that it is the same", that is to say, I [is the same as this].We are "taking by kind, giving by kind". In the later period, Mohists were proficient in the method of "debate", and did a lot of work to clarify and defend Mohism's philosophical position. Later Mohists followed the tradition of Mozi's utilitarian philosophy, advocating that the purpose of all human behavior is to gain benefits and avoid harm. The chapter "Great Acquisition" says: "Break off your fingers to save your wrists, take the big from the benefits, and take the small from the harms. Choose the small from the harms, not to take the harm, but to take the benefits. . . . Avoiding the body is beneficial. When encountering robbers, harm is also.... To choose the greatest among the benefits is not a last resort. To choose the small among the harms is a last resort. To take what is not there is to choose the greatest among the benefits. To give up what you have is to choose the least harm.” Therefore, the rule of all human behavior is: “Take the greatest benefit; choose the least harm.” Both Mozi and later Mohists believed that "righteousness is beneficial".Benefit is the essence of righteousness.But what is the nature of profit?Mozi did not raise this question, but later Mohists raised it and answered it. The "Jingshang" says: "For profit, you will enjoy what you get. "Harm, you will get evil when you get it." In the later period, Mohists made hedonistic explanations for Mohist utilitarian philosophy. This position reminds us of Jeremy Bentham's "utilitarian philosophy".He said in "Introduction to the Principles of Moral Legislation": "'Natural' makes human beings ruled by two supreme authorities. These two authorities are pleasure and pain. Only these two authorities can point out what people should do and decide what people will do. What." (Page 7) "Utilitarian philosophy recognizes the fact that human beings obey these two authorities and takes it as the basis of philosophy. The purpose of this philosophy is to maintain happiness with reason and law." (Pages 1 and 2) In this way, Bentham reduced good and evil to issues of pleasure and pain.According to him, the purpose of morality is "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". Later Mohists did the same.After they defined benefits and harms, they then used the definition of benefits as a basis to define various moralities.They said: "Loyalty, thinking of benefit and strengthening the monarch." "Filial piety, benefiting relatives." ". Regarding the theory of universal love, later Mohists believed that its greatest feature is "Jian", that is, "Zhou". "Xiao Qu" said: "To love people, wait for Zhou to love people, and then to love people. If you don't love people, you don't wait for Zhou and don't love people. If you don't love people, you don't love people. Riding a horse, don't wait for Zhou to ride a horse, and then you can ride a horse. There is Riding on a horse is because you are riding a horse. If you don’t ride a horse until you catch it, you don’t ride a horse until you wait for a week, and then you don’t ride a horse. It’s the one who doesn’t ride a horse for a week.” That is to say, you must love everyone before you can be considered a lover; But it is not necessary not to love everyone all the time to be considered not to love others.This is different from riding a horse.You don't have to ride any horse to be considered horseback riding, but you have to not ride any horse to be considered not to ride a horse.This is the difference between the "week" of a lover and the "buzhou" of riding a horse. In fact, everyone has some loved ones.For example, everyone loves his own children.Therefore, the mere fact that a man always loves some does not mean that he loves all.But in terms of negation, if he harmed some people, even his own children, it can be said that he does not love people based on this, the reasoning of the Mohists is like this. There were two main objections to this point of view of the later Mohists.The first is to say that the number of people in the world is infinite; then, how can one person love all people at the same time?This objection is called "Infinite Harm".The second is that if there is a person you have not loved, you cannot be considered a lover, then there should be no punishment of "killing and stealing".This objection is called "killing robbers, killing people".Later Mohists tried to refute these objections with their "defense". The "Jingxia" chapter says: "Infinity does not harm both. If you say that you are in surplus, you will not know."That is to say, "infinity" and "concurrent" are not incompatible, and the reason for this can be known only by looking at whether it is full or not. "Jing Shuo Xia" develops this statement as follows: "No (opponents): 'If the south is infinite, it can be exhausted (the average person in ancient China believed that the south is infinite); if it is infinite, it cannot be exhausted. If there is a limit, it is infinite, unknown; then it can be Exhaustive, inexhaustible, unknown. Whether people are full or not is unknown; but it is impossible to know what people can do and cannot be exhausted. It is also impossible to know what people can love. It is paradoxical!' (Answer;) If there is no limit, man will have limit. If there is limit, there will be no difficulty. If there is limit, then there will be no limit. If there is limit, there will be no difficulty.” The answer means that if people do not fill the infinite area, the number of people will be There are poor ones.It is not difficult to count infinite numbers.If man should have filled an infinite region, the region which was supposed to be infinite is really finite.It is not difficult to go through the poor areas. "Killing robbers, killing people" is another main opinion against the Mohists, because killing people is contradictory to universal love.To this objection, Xiaoqu responded as follows: "White horse, horse. Riding on a white horse, riding on a horse. Riding on a lima, riding on a horse. Riding on a lima, riding on a horse. Huo, people. Love Huo, love people. Zang, people. Love Zang, love people. This It is natural. "Acquisitive relatives are people. Acquisition is about relatives, not people. My younger brother is a beautiful woman. Loving my younger brother is not about loving beautiful women. A car is a wood. Riding a car is not a matter of wood. A boat is a wood. Riding a boat is not riding on wood. Stealing is not being done by people. There are many thieves, not because there are many people. No thieves, not because there are no people. "How can I understand it? Evil many thieves, but not evil many people. If you want no thieves, you don't want no one. The world is the same. If it is, then even if you steal, you are also human; if you love thieves, you don't love others; if you don't love thieves, It is not difficult to kill thieves if you don’t love others, and if you don’t want to kill people.” In the later period, Mohist used such "argument" to refute the objection that "killing robbers" is not suitable for both. criticism of others In the later period, Mohists used their arguments not only to refute the opinions of other schools against Mohism, but also to criticize other schools.For example, there are many opinions against the debate of famous scholars in the "Mojing".We will remember that Hui Shi had an argument of "difference in contract".In his "Ten Things" he started from the premise that "all things are the same".Come to the conclusion that "Bai loves all things, and heaven and earth are one".In the later Mohist view.This is a fallacy, which is caused by the ambiguity of "same" Yu.They pointed out that there are four kinds of "same". The "Jingshang" says: "Same: weight, body, combination, and class." "Jing Shuo Shang" explained: "Same: two names and one reality, and the same; it is not more than concurrent, and the body is the same; both are in the room. , the contract is also; if there is the same, the similar is also." "Jing Shang" and "Jing Shuo Shang" also discussed "difference", and the difference and the same are exactly the opposite. The "Mojing" does not mention Huishi's name.In fact, each chapter of the "Mojing" does not mention anyone's name.However, from the analysis of the word "same", Huishi's fallacy is also clear.To say "all things are the same" means that they are of the same kind, which is "similar".But to say "heaven and earth are one body" means that they have a part-to-whole relationship, which is "the same body".It cannot be deduced from propositions that similarity is true that similar propositions are also true, although they all use the word "same". Regarding Gongsunlong's argument of "Li Jianbai", later Mohists only considered the specific Jianbai stone that actually existed in the physical world.Therefore, they advocate that firmness and whiteness exist in the stone at the same time, and they believe that "hardness and whiteness are not related to each other" ("Jing 1"), and "must be compatible" ("Jing Shuo 2"). "Not interfering with each other" means that they do not exclude each other, and "combining each other" means interpenetrating each other. Later Mohists also criticized Taoism. "Jing Xia" says: "The benefits of learning are also said to be slandering." Yes, it’s teaching. It’s useless to learn, so teaching is paradoxical!” This is a criticism of Lao Tzu's sentence: "Stop learning without worry" (Chapter 20 of "Lao Tzu"). This sentence of Lao Tzu believes that learning is useless.According to the later Mohists, learning and mathematics are interrelated, and if you want to give up learning, you must also give up teaching.As long as there is teaching, there must be learning. If teaching is beneficial, learning will not be unprofitable.Since "learning is not beneficial" is the teaching, the teaching itself just proves that learning is beneficial. "Jing Shuo Xia" said: "It is inappropriate to say that there is no victory in the debate. It is a debate." , It may be called a dog. If it is different, it may be called a cow, or it may be called a horse. There is no victory in both, and there is no debate. Those who argue, either call it yes, or call it wrong, and the right one wins. "This explanation means: When speaking, what people say is either the same or different.One person says "dog", another person says "dog", it is the same.One person says it is a "cow" and another person says it is a "horse", which is different. (That is to say, if there is a difference, there will be a debate.) If no one wins, there will be no debate.Debate means that some of them say it is so, while others say it is not so.Whoever is right wins. The "Jingxia" chapter also said: "Take words as the end of the paradox, paradox. Say it in your words." "Jing Shuo II" explained: "It is not allowed to be contradictory. What people say is acceptable, but if it is not contradictory, it is possible; what people say is not allowed, and it must be accepted, and it will not be judged." This explanation means that : It is untenable to say that words are the limit.If the person who holds this statement can stand up, then at least the statement is not contradictory, and some statements can still be established; The "Jing Xia" also said: "Knowledge, knowing or not is the same, contradictory. There is nothing to say." In other words, it is said that knowing and not knowing are the same. The reason for this contradiction lies in "no way". That is, without reliance. "Jing Shuo Xia" explained: "Knowledge. Discuss it, there is nothing to do without knowledge." That is to say, as long as there is knowledge, there will be discussions about knowledge.Unless there is no knowledge, there is no basis for discussion. The second chapter of the Sutra also says: "Those who are not slanderers are paradoxical, and they say it in Fufei." That is to say, it is paradoxical to condemn criticism, and the reason lies in "Fufei", that is, not to condemn. "Jing Shuo Xia" explains: "It's not slander, it's not your own slander. It's not slander, it can't be slander. It can't be wrong, it's not slander." That is to say, to condemn criticism is to condemn your own condemnation .If you do not condemn criticism, there is nothing to condemn.If you cannot condemn criticism, that means not condemning criticism. These are all criticisms of Zhuangzi.Zhuangzi believed that in a debate, nothing can be decided.He said that even if someone wins, the winner may not be right and the loser may not be wrong.But in the view of the later Mohists, Zhuangzi's words just showed that he disagreed with others, and he was arguing with others.If he won the argument, wouldn't this fact just prove that he was wrong?Zhuangzi also said: "Great debate does not speak."He also said: "Words and debates are too late" (see "Zhuangzi Equality of Things").Therefore, "everything goes against the grain".Zhuangzi further believes that all things are correct according to their own way and opinions, and one should not criticize the other (ibid.).But in the view of the later Mohists, what Zhuangzi said was "words", which in itself was criticism of others.If "words are completely contradictory", isn't Zhuangzi's statement not contradictory?If all criticism should be condemned, then Zhuangzi's criticism should be the first to be condemned.Zhuangzi also talked about the importance of not having knowledge.But his talking and discussing like this is a kind of knowledge in itself.If there is really no knowledge, then even his discussions will be gone. When Mohism criticized Taoism in the later period, it revealed some logical paradoxes that also appeared in Western philosophy. Only when a new logic was established in modern times can these paradoxes be resolved.Therefore, in contemporary logic, the criticism made by the later Mohists is no longer valid.However, we see that the Mohists in the later period are so full of logical thinking, which is really admirable.They tried to create a pure system of epistemology and logic, which was beyond the reach of other ancient Chinese schools.