THE DIALOGUE
THREE VERSIONS

White horse discourse  — Chinese Text Project

1[A]: Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?
2[B]: It can.

3[A]: How so?
4[B]: « Horse » is how the shape is named; « white » is how the color is named. That which names color does not name shape. Thus I say: « a white horse is not a horse ».

5[A]: Having a white horse cannot be said to be having no horses. Is not that which cannot be said to be having no horses a horse? Having a white horse is having a horse; how can a white one not be a horse?

6[B]: Requesting a horse, a brown or a black horse may arrive; requesting a white horse, a brown or a black horse will not arrive. By making a white horse the same as a horse, what is requested [in these two cases] is the same. If what is requested is the same, then a white horse is no different to a horse; if what is requested is no different, then how is it that in one case brown and black horses are acceptable, and in the other they are not? Acceptable and unacceptable are clearly in opposition to each other. Thus brown and black horses are also one in that one can reply that there is a horse, yet one cannot reply that there is a white horse. It is clear indeed that a white horse is not a horse.

7[A]: If a horse with color is not a horse, then since there are no colorless horses in the world, can it be that there are no horses in the world?

8[B]: A horse necessarily has color; thus there are white horses. If one makes horses have no color, then there are merely horses – how can one pick out a white horse? Thus that which is white is not a horse. A white horse is horse and white, horse and white horse. Thus I say: « a white horse is not a horse ».

9[A]: A horse not yet with white is a horse, and white not yet with a horse is white. Combining horse with white, it is together named a « white horse ». This is to use an uncombined name for a combined thing, and is inadmissible. Thus I say: « a white horse is not a horse » is inadmissible.

10[B]: Taking their being white horses as there being horses, as calling there being white horses there being brown horses – is this admissible?

11[A]: No.

12[B]: Taking their being horses as different to there being brown horses, is to take brown horses as different to horses. Taking brown horses to be different to horses, is to take it that brown horses are not horses. To take brown horses as not horses, and yet take white horses as being horses, is to have the flying in a pond and the inner and outer coffins in different places: a contradictory claim and misuse of statements as there is under heaven!

13[A]: Having white horses cannot be called having no horses, this is what is meant by the separation of white. Not separating it, having white horses cannot be said to be having horses. Thus the reason why it is taken as having horses, is merely that « horses » are taken as « having horses », and « having white horses » is not « having horses ». Thus on your taking it as having horses, one cannot call a horse a horse.

14[B]: White does not fix what is white, this can be put aside. « White horse » speaks of white fixing what is white. That which fixes what is white is not white. « Horse » does not pick or exclude color, thus a brown or black horse can be brought. « White horse » does pick or exclude color; brown and black horses are excluded by color, thus only a white horse can be brought. That which does not exclude is not that which does exclude. Thus I say: « a white horse is not a horse ».

Forke

1— Is it possible that a white horse is no horse
— Yes.

3 How ?
4 A horse denotes a shape, white a colour. Describing a colour one does not describe a shape, therefore I say that a white horse is no horse.

5. There being a white horse, one cannot say that there is no horse. If one cannot say that there is no horse, can the existence of the horse be denied?There being a white horse, one must admit that there is a horse; how can whiteness bring about the non-existence of a horse ?

6. When a horse is required, yellow and black ones can all be brought, but when a white horse is wanted, there is no room for yellow and black ones. Now let a white horse be a horse ! It is but one kind of hose required. Then, one of those required, a white horse would not be different from a horse. Those required do not differ. Would then yellow and black ones meet the requirement or not ? In so far as they would meet the requirement or not, they would evidently exclude each other. Yellow as well as black horses are each one kind ; they correspond to a call for a horse, but not to a call for a white horse. Hence it results that a white horse cannot be a horse.

7. — A horse having colour is considered no horse. But there are no colourless horses on earth ! Are there, therefore, no horses on earth ?

8 A horse having colour is considered no horse. But there are no colourless horses on earth! Are there, therefore, no horses on earth? 8. Horses of course have colour, therefore there are white horses. If horses had no colour there would be merely horses. But how can we single out white horses, for whiteness is no horse? A white horse is a horse and whiteness. Such being the case, I hold that a white horse is no horse’.