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.

[L’impossible Tiers]

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?

“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.

Mencius “Practice what you preach!”

Mencius, “Chen Xiang said: ‘A true worthy tills the soil beside his people, cooking his own meals as he orders the state.’”

3A.4 A man named Xu Xing came to Teng from Chu, preaching the doctrines of the Sublime Farmer. He marched through the court gate and announced to Duke Wen, “I, a distant stranger, have heard that Your Highness is practicing humane governance, and I wish to receive a dwelling place here that I may become one of your common subjects.”
Duke Wen provided him a place. His several dozen followers all wore clothes of coarse hemp and eked out a living by weaving sandals and mats.

[…] Chen Xiang came to Teng from Song with his brother Xin, both bearing ploughs upon their backs. Chen Xiang said, “I have heard that Your Highness is [59] practicing the governance of sages. This makes you a sage as well, and it is my wish to become the common subject of a sage.”

Then Chen Xiang met Xu Xing and was delighted. He discarded all he had learned before and took Xu Xing as his teacher. When he met Mencius, he spoke to him of Xu Xing’s teachings. “The lord of Teng is certainly a worthy ruler. Still, he has yet to hear the Dao. A true worthy tills the soil beside his people, cooking his own meals as he orders the state. Now, Teng has granary stores and treasure vaults; this shows that the Duke treats his people with harshness in order to nurture his own person. How could this be worthy?”

Mencius said, “Does Master Xu only eat what he himself has planted?”
“Yes.”
“Does he only wear clothes that he himself has sewn?”
“No,” said Chen Xiang. “He wears hemp.”
“Does he wear a cap?”
“Yes.”
“What kind?”
“It is of plain silk.”
“He weaves it himself?”
“No, he traded some grain as barter for it.”
“Why doesn’t Master Xu weave it himself?”
“It would interfere with his farm work.”
“Does he cook with pots and steamers and work his land with an iron ploughshare?” “Yes.” “Does he make these things himself?”
“No, he trades grain to get such things.”
“Then to trade grain for implements cannot be treating the potter and smith with harshness, and when the potter and smith exchange their wares for grain, neither is that treating the farmer harshly. But why does not Master Xu work as a potter and smith so that he will be able to get from within his own home everything that he needs? Why does he enter into this welter of exchanges with various craftsmen? Doesn’t he begrudge all this bother?”

“No one,” said Chen Xiang, “could undertake the work of all craftsmen and be a farmer besides!”

“Well, then, is ruling the world the only occupation that one can undertake while farming? There are affairs of great men and affairs of ordinary men. If it were necessary for each individual first to make all the implements of his work before using them, it would simply march the world down the road to exhaustion.

“For this reason, it is said, ‘Some labor with their minds, some labor with their strength.’ Those who labor with their minds bring order to those who labor with their strength, and those who labor with their strength are ordered by those who labor with their minds. Those who are put in order by others feed people, and those who order people are fed by others. This is a universal principle throughout the world.

“In the time of Yao, […]

Mencius_Eno, 3A.4

---

Categorization – Analogy

 

ATC	Auteurs chinois cités : Transcription des Noms cités – Dates –  Œuvres La période

Transcription des noms d’auteurs cités – Dates – Œuvres

La période

Surligné jaune : la période

Surligné rose : la période des Royaumes Combattants

Surligné noir : L’empereur de Chine
Qín Shihuang(di) ; (W-G, Ch’in Shih-huang ; EFEO Ts’in Che-houang)

,Surligné bleu : Début de la dynastie Han

 

 

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

I told Liu Tzu-chün that cultivating one’s nature does not help (postpone old age). His elder brother’s son Po-yü said “If Heaven produces drugs which kill man, it must certainly produce drugs which gives man life.” 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.

*

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

Discerning confusion
Rejection 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.

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.

 

Does catching a crane cause thunderclaps?

In the Empire there are cranes which are eaten in all the commanderies and kingdoms. Only in the Three Capital Districts does no one dare catch them because of the custom that an outbreak of thunder will occur if a crane is caught. Could it be that Heaven originally favored only this bird? [No],the killing of the bird merely coincided with thunder. (Huan T’an  (-43, +28) Hsin Lun (New treatise), fragment 133, p.122)

Huan T’an  (-43, +28) Hsin Lun (New treatise). Translated by Timoteus Pokora. University of Michigan, Center for Chinese studies, 1975. https://library.oapen.org › bitstream.

*

Succession doesn’t imply causation

Causal arguments justify or deny the existence of a causal link between two facts, « B because of A ».
A classic counter-argument to the claim “B, because of A” denies the existence of a causal relationship : « there is no causality between events A and B, but a simple coincidence » — here, « catching a crane » and « thunderclap« .
This fallacy is identified by Aristotle as a fallacy independent of language, sometimes referred to by the Latin label non causa pro causa, that is, “non cause as cause”.

---

 

Argument DIRECT et argument INDIRECT

L’argumentation directe repose sur un argument substantiel tiré du domaine thématique défini par la question et lui apportant une réponse par le moyen d’un topos inférentiel. L’argument direct soutient positivement la conclusion qu’il défend.

On appelle argumentation indirecte :
1) Une argumentation fondée sur un argument périphérique, c’est-à-dire fondé sur une circonstance des actions discutées et non pas sur l’action elle-même.

2) Un argument qui montre non pas que les choses sont telles et telles, mais qu’elles ne peuvent pas être autrement. L’argument indirect soutient une conclusion en se fondant sur le fait que la conclusion opposée est fausse ou indéfendable.
Le topos utilisé est une loi de la pensée ordinaire “on ne peut pas avoir simultanément P et non-P”, qui vaut dans tous les domaines argumentatifs. Quel que soit le contenu substantiel de l’affirmation P, si on sait que non-P est fausse, alors P est vraie. La conclusion n’apporte rien de substantiel à la discussion de P, ni connaissance ni compréhension.
Les arguments suivants sont des arguments indirects en ce sens:

Argumentation par l’ignorance : on adopte une croyance parce qu’on n’a aucune raison de ne pas l’adopter.
— par l’absurde : on adopte une proposition parce que la proposition contraire conduit à une absurdité.
— au cas par cas : on admet le cas résiduel parce que tous les autres sont rejetés.

3) On parle également d’argumentation indirecte pour désigner une argumentation ou une interaction argumentative formatée selon un genre littéraire : roman, poésie, etc.
Dans le même sens, on appelle également argumentation directe une argumentation développée par des participants impliqués dans les enjeux, et  argumentation indirecte une argumentation rapportée.

— On appelle également argumentation directe une argumentation développée par des participants impliqués dans ses enjeux, et  argumentation indirecte une argumentation rapportée, en particulier une argumentation racontée, c’est-à-dire mise en scène selon un genre journalistique ou littéraire : théâtre, roman, poésie, etc. Les personnes représentées comme des acteurs primaires de l’argumentation ne sont pas nécessairement impliqués dans les enjeux de la question argumentative traitée.