The rejection of contradiction is a fundamental feature of Western logic. According to the non contradiction principle, it is not possible to support something and its opposite, A and not A: the elementary logical world is made up of stable elements that have stable relationships with each other.
The principle of non-contradiction is the basis of ordinary reasoning, as well as logical and scientific reasoning. In ordinary exchanges we tend to talk about coherence. If the same person has just argued this and now, three minutes later, argues that, and if this and that are contradictory, he owes his interlocutors at least an explanation; if he makes incoherent statements in the same discussion, he destroys the discussion.
Mental confusion characterises the state of contradiction
The requirement of coherence does not only apply to statements. The following case appeals to the coherence of feelings (Leslie 1964, [1]); lack of coherence leads to (mental) confusion
Confucius, AnalectsEno
12.10 Zizhang asked about […] discerning confusion. The Master said […] When one cherishes a person, one wishes him to live; when one hates a person, one wishes him to die – on the one hand cherishing and wishing him life, while, on the other, hating and wishing him death that is confusion.
Truly, it is not a matter of riches, Indeed, it is simply about discernment.
Inconsistency between words and deeds
In the following passage, ChuangTzu uses an ad hominem argument to accuse the Confucians of opportunism and amorality,
Ch’ang, Viscount T’ien Ch’eng, murdered his sovereign and stole his state, and yet Confucius was willing to receive gifts from him. In pronouncement they [the Confucians] condemned them, but in practice they bowed before them. Think how this contradiction between the facts of word and deed must have troubled their breasts! Could the two help but clash? So the book says, Who is bad? Who is good? The successful man becomes the head, the unsuccessful man becomes the tail.
Chuang Tzu, chap. 29, Robber Chi.
A dialectician might try to correct his interlocutor’s understanding; Chuang Tzu is content to condemn the Confucian’s behaviour and resign himself to their good fortune.
Face to face ad hominem accusation
Ad hominem refutation always requires a certain amount of editing of the target’s words or words and actions. For example, it is always unpleasant for a master to be critically confronted with his own teaching. In passages 1.6 and 1.7 of the Confucius Analects, the scholar is characterised by his correct behaviour towards worthy people, his parents, people in general, his masters (those who are ren), and seems to attach only secondary importance to knowledge of the texts.
1.6. The Master said: A young man should be filial within his home and respectful of elders when outside, should be careful and trustworthy, broadly caring of people at large, and should cleave to those who are ren. If he has energy left over, he may study the refinements of culture (wen).
Zixia, a disciple of Confucius, offers a definition of a scholar along the same lines, though perhaps less categorically,
1.7. Zixia said: If a person treats worthy people as worthy and so alters his expression, exerts all his effort when serving his parents, exhausts himself when serving his lord, and is trustworthy in keeping his word when in the company of friends, though others may say he is not yet learned, I would call him learned.
AnalectsEno, 1.6-7
In another passage, Zilu, one of Confucius’ disciples, has just hired another of his disciples, Zigao. Confucius seems to reproach him for this:
Zilu appointed Zigao to be the steward of Bi. The Master said, “You are stealing another man’s son!”
Zilu said, “There are people there; there are altars of state there – why must one first read texts and only then be considered learned?”
The Master said, “This is why I detest glib talkers!”
AnalectsEno, 1, 25
The Master seems to take offence at Zilu’s repartee.
Again, R. Eno’s note clarifies the passage by relating it to an earlier passage,
Note Eno : Zilu seems to be invoking lessons Confucius himself taught, much like the ideas in 1.6-7, to confound Confucius himself, which is the basis of Confucius’s answer.
En effet, en 11, 25 Zilu lui rappelle qu’il a dit qu’un comportement parfaitement réglé vis à vis des personnes de référence – parents, Seigneur, amis – suffisait pour que quelqu’un soit reconnu comme « a learned [person] », et traité comme tel, par exemple en recevant un emploi. Zilu se défend ainsi de lui avoir “volé Zigao”, ou défend la décision de Zigao.
This contradiction is just one way of exercising the right of admonition, which is the counterpart of the right and duty of obedience to the ruler and the father.
_______________
[1] Leslie, Donald, 1964.
Argument by Contradiction in Pre-Buddhist Chinese Reasoning. Faculty of Asian Studies, ANU., Canberra.