ATC	“RHETORIC TO THE SINGLE-PERSON AUDIENCE”

Rhetoric to the single person audience developped special features.
(Hui Wu 2016, Preface to Guiguzi, etc., p. 12)

The Chinese rhetors were not public speakers but persuaders primarily in a private setting, most often talking to a one-person audience, often assumed to be the ruler or a superior. (id.)

Guiguzi, China’s first treatise on Rhetoric. A critical translation and commentary.
Translated by Hui Wu. With commentaries by Hui Wu and C. Jan Swearingen. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press. 2016.

---

« Warring states period » or « a first-millenium forgery »? —  A critical note on the preface
Was the book written by one author during the Warring States period (5th–3rd century BCE), or is it a forgery by various authors from the 1st millennium CE?
The issue is not simply a a scholarly dispute. The translator’s preface is entirely based on the hypothesis that « Guiguzi » lived during the Warring States period. If the reviewer is correct, then key passages of this preface, as well as the general perspective taken on Chinese rhetoric, are irrelevant.

A. S., a reviewer:
Can’t imagine how the introduction got past peer review

The translator supposes that this book is written by a wise old man named Guiguzi, who lived in the Warring States period […]
Many scholars suspect that the whole thing is a first-millennium forgery retroactively attributed to a shadowy master with a commensurately shadowy name (Master of the Valley of Ghosts). […]
Address: https://www.desertcart.sc/products/118771091-guiguzi-chinas-first-treatise-on-rhetoric-a-critical-translation-commentary

---

 

ATC	Rules of Debate: TSOU-YEN Inaugural Program

“The least misleading appoach to Chinese disputation is through the thinkers who actually describe and operate the apparatus of disputation, the later Mohists » (Graham 1978, p.19-20).
Graham takes Tsou Yen’s “program” (see Kroll 1985-1987) as the starting point for this tradition of disputers.
Tsou Yen lived from around 340 to around 260 BCE.

In this way, the winner does not fail to make his point and the loser finds what he is seeking.

The disputation recognised throughout the world has ‘five wins and three arrivals, of which correctness in phrasing is the least. (1)
The disputant distinguishes separate kinds of things so that they do not interfere with each other, arranges in sequences different starting-points, so that they do not confuse each other, dredges his ideas and makes his meaning intelligible, and clarifies what he has to say; he shares his knowledge with others and does not busy himself with misleading them.
In this way, the winner does not fail to make his point and the loser finds what he is seeking.
When it comes to elaborating style in order to put up a pretence, adorning phases in order to make nonsense of the other’s case, using subtle comparisons to make it shift his ground, stretching what he litterally says so that he cannot get back to his own idea, to behave like this is harmful to the Great Way.
Engaging in tangled debates and competing to keep talking the longest cannot but be harmful to being a gentleman
Tsou Yen_GRAHAM 1978, p. 20-21.

---

Rules of the Method

POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

1) Cognitive component

The participants must:
(a) Distinguishe separate kinds of things so that they do not interfere with each other.
First step, about things: clarification of categories. Distinguish things according to their proper category; categories are set of things of the same kind.
No interference, that is, non-overlapping categories No fuzzy zones.

(b) Arrange in sequences different starting-points, so that they do not confuse each other,
Second, about the organization of reasoning (i.e., the correct arrangement of judgments (NB in (a): correct grouping of things). Discourse arrangement.
Starting points, basis of the whole reasoning:  premisses, data, hypotheses, postulates, as well as implicit assumptions. The issue is the epistemic status of what is said.

In (a) and (b) clarification / confusion

(c) Dredges his ideas
Both participants deepen and clear up their ideas, that is exert self criticism.
For example, they have to get rid of prejudices and dubious ideas, like scooping out mud, weeds and rubbish out out a river with a dredge. Bacon’s « idols » produce such waste.
They have to track down their own shortcomings and fallacies.

2) Linguistic component

The participant must:
(d) Make his meaning intelligible:
Expression – communication: they ensure that what they have developed conceptually is expressed correctly and is correctly understood by their partner.

(e) Clarify what he has to say
The task of clarifying one’s thoughts doubles as the task of searching for the right expression. Globally (d) is about conceptual meaning whereas (e) is about correct reasoning.

[2g] Share his knowledge with others and do not busy himself with misleading them.
Share [their] knowledge with others:
            Task which has been detailed through the cognitive and linguistic recommendations. 

Do not busy himself with misleading them:
             Task which will be detailed through the cognitive and linguistic recommendations 1)

NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Global structure of the negative component
The positive section has a linear structure; Tree kind of action converge to a global result, « the winner does not fail to make his point and the loser finds what he is seeking.“

The negative section has an alternating structure combines two parallel groupings

1st series: four negative actions (behaviors) converge to a global result:
harmfull to the Great Way.

2nd series: two negative actions (behaviors) converge to a global result parallel to the first: harmful to being a gentleman.

First series, four actions
The actions
Elaborate style in order to put up a pretence
Using style in order to mask the weaknesses of reasoning

Adorn phases in order to make nonsense of the other’s case
A classic condemnation of ornaments, The prestige orf ornaments superseds the reasoning – dissimulates the weakness of the positions.

Use subtle comparisons to make it shift his ground,
Subtle comparison is the first step towards metaphor. A especially de-stabilizing move.

Stretch what he litterally says, so that he cannot get back to his own idea,

Result: Harmfull to the Great Way.

Second series,

Engaging in tangled debate.
Better not to engage or join a tangled debate, that is a debate defying                                       clarification.

Competing to keep talking the longest
Could join the fallacy of eloquence. 

Result: Harmfull to being a Gentleman.

Harmful to the Great way = Harmful to reality
Harmful to being a Gentleman = Harmful to the status of the person

 

---

Graham, Arthur C., 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. The Chinese University Press, Chinese University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Kroll J. L.,1985-1987. Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture. Early China, Vol. 11/12 (1985–1987). Cambridge University Press. Pp. 118-145.

• • Lat. incommodum, “inconvénient”.

L’argument ad incommodum est défini par Bossuet comme « l’argument qui jette dans l’inconvénient » ([1677], p. 131). C’est une variante de l’usage réfutatif de l’argumentation pragmatique, par les conséquences inacceptables ou contradictoires, V. Absurde.

Bossuet illustre ce schème par un exemple destiné à réfuter les doctrines des opposants au pouvoir politique absolu sur les corps et à l’autorité ecclésiastique absolue sur les âmes.

S’il n’y avoit point d’autorité politique à laquelle on obéit sans résistance, les hommes se dévoreraient les uns les autres ; et s’il n’y avoit point d’autorité ecclésiastique à laquelle les particuliers fussent obligés de soumettre leur jugement, il y auroit autant de religions que de têtes. Or est-il qu’il est faux [mais il est faux] qu’on doive souffrir, ni que les hommes se dévorent les uns les autres, ni qu’il y ait autant de religions que de têtes. Donc, il faut admettre nécessairement une autorité politique à laquelle on obéisse sans résistance, et une autorité ecclésiastique à laquelle les particuliers soumettent leur jugement.
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Logique du Dauphin [1677] [1]

La réfutation de Bossuet a la forme de deux syllogismes hypothétiques :

Sans d’autorité politique absolue, les hommes se dévoreraient : non AP → D
Sans autorité religieuse absolue, les religions se multiplieraient : non AR → M
Les hommes ne doivent pas se dévorer : non D
Les religions ne doivent pas se multiplie : non M
Donc il faut une autorité politique absolue :  AP
Donc il faut une autorité religieuse absolue : AR

Les deux argumentations sont présentées de façon strictement parallèle. Cet effet textuel ou stylistique a pour effet de solidariser les deux argumentations, donc les deux pouvoirs, jusqu’à l’identification. [2] Ce parallélisme est différent de celui qui est mis en œuvre dans l’argument des cas parallèles, fondé sur l’analogie de deux domaines asymétriques, un comparant et un comparé.

---

[1] Paris, Éditions universitaires, 1990, p. 131 (Orthographe originelle)

[2] Cette identification exclut par exemple la pluralité des religions dans une monarchie absolue, justifiant ainsi la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes de 1685.

---

 

ATC	A good argument, not a guarantee to be right

Zhuangzi
♦ “If you prevail over me, does that mean that what you say is so?’

2.14: Escaping the infinite regress of adjudication*
Now let’s say that you and I debate. If you prevail over me and I do not prevail over you, does that mean that what you say is so and what I say is not? If I prevail over you and you do not prevail over me, does that mean that what I say is so and what you say is not?
Or is it that one of us is right and one of us wrong? Or are both of us right or both of us wrong? If you and I are both unable to know, then others will become muddled as we are.

The impossible third party

Whom shall we call upon to put it right? Shall we call upon one who agrees with you? But if he agrees with you, how can he put it right?
Shall we call upon one who agrees with me? But if he agrees with me, how can he put it right?
Shall we call upon one who differs with both you and me? But if he differs with both you and me, how can he put it right?
Shall we call upon one who agrees with both you and me? But if he agrees with both you and me, how can he put it right?

The skeptical attitude: “Therefore logdge all this in the boundless”

Thus you and I and these others all cannot know – shall we await yet another? Harmonize all of these by the horizon of heaven. Relying on it to stretch forward is the way to live out your full lifespan; forgetting the years, forgetting all judgments, stirring within the boundless.
What do I mean by the horizon of heaven? It is to say, assert what is not true; affirm what is not so. Were what is true so different from what is false, there would be no arguments; were what is so that different from what is not, there would be no arguments. The mutual dependence of shifting voices is the same as if they were not mutually dependent. Therefore lodge all this in the boundless.

---

Zhuangzi (pinyin) – Chuang Tzu (W-G) – Tchouang-tseu (EFEO)
(~-369 ~288, dates traditionnelles) ; -4e siècle.

Zhuangzi, The Inner Chapters. Translated by Robert Eno. Version 1.0. 2010.
Chap. 2, On making things equal. § 2.14: Escaping the infinite regress of adjudication. P. 20.

ATC	Chinese authors cited Transcription of Names – Dates – Works

Transcription

Pinyin transcription is the official modern transcription of standard Chinese using the letters of the Latin alphabet (CK). Introduced in China in 1958.

Other transcription systems:
— Wade – Giles system, most used in the English-speaking world before the introduction of the pinyin system.
— EFEO system, from the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), designed by Séraphin Couvreur in 1902 used in French, before the introduction of the pinyin system. 
— Latin transcription

Other transcription systems can be found in the texts; quotations respect the author’s choice.

---

Dates and Periods

Date during the Common Era or Christian Era, CE: 512 = 512 CE
Date before the Common Era, BCE: 512 BCE

Periods start and end dates:
—— 512 BCE – 480 BCE 
—— 512 BCE – 215CE
—— 512 CE – 623 CE = 512 – 623

Hypothetical dates are noted « c. » or a « ca.« , abbreviations of the Latin word « circa » « around, approximately »:
c. 512BCE – c.215BCE.
c. 513 BCE
c. 513CE = c. 513ce

---

 

Kongfuzi K’ung-fu-tzu Confucius

551 – 479 bce

Analects

Deng Xi Teng Hsi

c. 545 – 501 bce

Teng Hsi Tse

Mozi Mo Tzu Micius

470 – 391 bce (W)

Mozi

Zhuang zi Chuang-tzu Tchouang-tseu

c. 4th C. bce

Zhuangzi

 

 

Shang Yang

c 390 bce 338_bce

The Book of Lord Shang

Meng Ke, Meng zi Meng tzu Mencius

Lifetime period 380 – 300 bce (Eno)

Mencius

Gongsun Long  Kung -sun Lung

c. 320 – 250 bce

Zou Yan Tsou Yen

305 – 240 bce

Xunzi Hsün Tzu Siun-tseu

before –298 bce, after –238 bce

Xunzi, Hsün Tzu

Lu Buwei Lü Pu-wei

291 – 235 bce ? – 253 bce (CK)

Lüshi Chunqiu « Spring and Autumn of Lü Buwei«

Hanfei, Hanfeizi

c. 280 – 233 bce

Han Fei Zi Han-Fei-tse, ou Le Tao du PrinceLÉVI Han-Fei-tsi Basic WritingsWATSON

Sima Qian Se-Ma Tsien

c. 145 – c. 86 BC

Shiji Mémoires Historiques Records of the Grand Historian

Huan Tan Huan T’an

c. 43 bce, 28 ce

Xinlun « New Discussions«

Wang Chong Wang Ch’ung

c. 27 – 97 ce

Lunheng « Critical Discussions«

 

Liu Hsieh

465, 522

Wen-hsin tiao-lung « The literary mind and the Carving of dragons«

---

Period from 600 bce to 200 bce

The scale of time (600bce-200bce)  is highlighted in yellow
Highlighted in pink: the period of the Warring States
Highlighted in black: Qín Shihuang(di), Emperor of unified China
Highlighted in blue: Beginning of the Han dynasty

 

ATC	Opposite terms presuppose each other “If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which give man life”

Huan T’an  43 bce – 28ce
1— I told Liu Tzu-chün that cultivating one’s nature does not help (postpone old age).
2— His elder brother’s son Po-yü said “If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which gives man life.”
3—I said, “The plant ourouparia rhynchophylla does not agree with man, so eating it causes death. But it is not produced for the purpose of killing man. Similarly, Szechwan beans poison fish, arsenic kills rats, cassis injures otters, and apricot stones kill dogs. But these are not made by Heaven for this purpose.
Fragment 66, p. 80-81.

Huan T’an (-43, +28) Hsin-lun (New Treatise) and other Writings.
An annotated translation with index by Timoteus Pokora. Michigan Paper in Chinese studies, The University of Michigan, Center for Chinese Studies. (our numbering

1 — The discussion focuses on the length of human life, the possibility of prolonging or even making it eternal.
« Cultivating one’s nature » is a key Confucean imperative for living a better life, but it is rejected here as a mean of extending life.

2 — Po-yü implicitly agrees with this negative conclusion and proposes another theoretical posibility, using the topos of the opposites:
Some plants cause death, so there must be plants which give life
The search is not about medicinal plants, known by the Chinese since the Divine Farmer told Human about them, but about plants giving eternal life. 

Since there are toxic plants, so there must be healing plants, The reasoning is, since the opposite  tems are mutually  defined (nice presupposes disagreeable, positive/negative, etc.). Speaking of toxic plants presupposes the existence of curative plants. 

3. Paragraph 3 refutes Po-yü’s belief in Heaven’s benevolent intentions toward humanity.
The issue is the teleological structure and providential organization of the world. Oranges are naturally divided into segments, but it It would be absurd to interpret this as a suggestion by Goddess Nature that the fruit should be shared between the members of the group.

*

“If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which gives man life.”

ATC

OPPOSITES

Argument scheme of the opposites:

« If A is B, then neg-A is neg-B. »
« Since my life has been useless, I wish that my death serves some purpose. »

Just as there was a system of thought based on analogy during the Renaissance, there is also a system of thought based on opposites.

---

Book of Rites- LIJI 

One of the « Five classics » associated with Confucianism. Written before

Liji, Chapter 1, « Elements of propriety« 

You should know the weakness of the man you loved and know the strength of the man you hated.

Liji – On Propriety [ Social and Individual Behavior]. Compiled by Dai Sheng. Translated by Luo Zhiye. P. 1.

---

Han Fei Tse

Han Fei Tzi, Section 6, “On having standards”

Punishment of error does not avoid the great ministers, reward for good does not overlook commoners

The linguistic paralelism serves the topos of the opposites.

punishment [of error]	does not avoid	great ministers
reward [for good	does not overlook	commoners

Han Fei Tzi, Section 6, “On having standards”; quoted and translated by A. C. Graham, 1989; 2 ed. 1991, p. 277.

Wang Chong (27-97 ce)

Wang Chung, « Four Things to be Avoided ». 

There are four things which, according to public opinion, must be avoided by all means. The first is to build an annex to a building on the west side, for such an annex is held to be inauspicious, and being so, is followed by a case of death. Owing to this apprehension, nobody in the world would dare to build facing the west. This prohibition dates from days of yore.  […]
On all the four sides of a house there is earth; how is it that three sides are not looked upon as of ill omen, and only an annex in the west is said to be unpropitious? How could such an annex be injurious to the body of earth. or hurtful to the spirit of the house? In case an annex in the west be unpropitious, would a demolition there be a good augury? Or, if an annex in the west be inauspicious, would it be a lucky omen in the east? For if there be something inauspicious, there must also be something auspicious, as bad luck has good luck as its correlate. […]

Statement to refute : “to build an annex on the west side is unpropitious »
The statement « to build an annex on the west side » admits two pairs of opposites, contrasting the predicate ”bring bad luck » with
1) the opposite action (demolish) in the same place (the west)
2) the same action (building) in another location (the east)

building a wing	on the west side	brings bad luck
demolishing a wing	on the west side	brings good luck
building a wing	on the east side	brings good luck

[1] Wang Chung, Four Things to be Avoided. In Lun-hêng, “Balanced Discussions”, Book XXIII, Ch. III, 68. Translation and notes by Alfred Forke, Leipzig, 1906. Reprinted by Paragon Book Gallery, New York, 1962. (p. 793-794). Quoted from http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/wang_chung/lunheng/wangchung_lunheng.pdf

---

Liu Hsieh, c. 465–522 ce
XXXV, Linguistic parallelism (Li-tz’u) (p. 251)

Crime: when in doubt, then deem it light. Merit: when in doubt, then deem it heavy.

The linguistic paralelism serves the topos of the opposites

crime	deem	light
merit	deem	heavy

---

Generalization

Based on syntactic and lexical oppositions, the topos of the opposites is a good candidate to universality.

---

 

ATC	CONTRADICTION AS CONFUSION

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.
See Ts’ou Yen inaugural program: « The disputant arranges in sequences different starting-points, so that they do not confuse each other. »

Confucius, Analects_Eno
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.

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

ATCCT — Confucius vs Tchuang Tze

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, Analects_Eno
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.
Analects_Eno, 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!”
Analects_Eno, 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.