{"id":14469,"date":"2025-06-25T15:12:55","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T13:12:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?page_id=14469"},"modified":"2025-10-26T11:43:56","modified_gmt":"2025-10-26T10:43:56","slug":"atc-dialecticians-disputers-sophists","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/atc-dialecticians-disputers-sophists\/","title":{"rendered":"Schools of Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
ATC\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nTHE \u00ab\u00a0SCHOOL OF NAMES\u00a0\u00bb
\nDIALECTICIANS, DISPUTERS, SOPHISTS<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A period of transition<\/span><\/h2>\n

Confucius<\/strong> lived from 551 to 479 BC, during the transition from the Spring and Autumn<\/strong> period (771\u2013481 BC) to the Warring States<\/strong> period (475\u2013221 BC).
\nMencius<\/strong> (380 \u2013 300 BCE) and Xunzi<\/strong> (c. 298 – c.238 BCE) belong are Confucianists.<\/p>\n

Fung Yu-lan describes the evolution of philosophical ideas during this period of transition (1952, p. 14).<\/p>\n

The general tendency of the Warring States<\/em> period was such, however, that these ancient institutions continued to disintegrate despite the attempts of the Confucians to uphold them.<\/strong><\/span>
\nFrom the age of Confucius onward, there arose men who criticized or opposed the ancient institutions; who wished to revise them; who wished to establish new institutions in their place; or who were opposed to all institutions whatsoever.<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe age was one of transition, during which the institutions of the past had lost their authority, and those of the new age had not yet been definitely formulated. It was inevitable then, that it should also be one of uncertainty and divergence. Thus, when the Confucians had advanced their arguments for the preservation of the past, other philosophers, holding divergent views, were forced, if they wished to gain a following, to explain in their turn the reasons why they considered their own doctrines superior.<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe Confucian philosopher, Hs\u00fcn Tzu, refers to this situation when he says about the doctrines of twelve opposing philosophers: \u00ab\u00a0What they support (all) seems reasonable; their teachings are (all) plausible \u00a0\u00bb (Hs\u00fcn-tzi, pp. 78, 79).<\/strong><\/span>
\nIn this way men became accustomed to emphasis being laid upon presentation, a fact which resulted in the rise of the School of Dialecticians, with its discussions on such subjects as the hard and the white, similarity and difference, and its purely logical interest.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The schools of philosophers were classified by Sima Qian in six schools:<\/p>\n

Yin-Yang school \u2014 literati or Confucians \u2014 Mohists \u2014 School of Names (ming<\/em>) \u2014 Legalists (fa<\/em>)\u00a0 \u2014 Taoists (tao te<\/em>) (after Fung Yu-lan 1922 ; 1952, pp. 30-31)<\/p>\n

The School of Names <\/strong>(ming chia<\/em>), was also called S. of Forms and Names (hsing ming chia<\/em>) \u2014 S.\u00a0 of Disputers (bianzhe<\/em>) \u2014 S. of Dialecticians (pien che<\/em>) \u2014 S. of Sophists.<\/p>\n

The main permanent antagonism was between Confucians<\/strong> on the one side, and, on the other, on different grounds of Mohists and Legalists.
\nSee Xunzi’s (c. 310 \u2013 c. 238bce<\/strong>) following diatribe aimed at the school of the Names:<\/p>\n

Rejecting the School of Names<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In the current era, there are people who ornament perverse doctrines and embellish vile teachings, so that they disturb and disorder the whole world.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Some of these men do not take the former kings as their model, nor do they take ritual and yi to be right.They like to master strange arguments and to play with unusual expressions. They investigate things with extreme acuteness but without any beneficent intent, and they debate matters but provide no useful results. They meddle in many affairs but have few accomplishments, and they cannot be made the binding thread of good order. <\/strong><\/span>
\nNevertheless they can find evidence for maintaining their views, and they achieve a reasoned order in their explanations, so that it is enough to deceive and confuse the foolish masses. Just such men are Hui Shi and Deng Xi.<\/strong><\/span>
\nXunziHUTTON<\/sub> chapter 6, Against the Twelve Masters<\/em>, p. 40; p. 41.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u201c The Chinese sophists\u00a0\u00bb<\/span><\/h2>\n

The School of Names is one of the six classical Chinese schools identified by the historian Sima Qian (145\u201386 BC) in his history of China, the Shi Ji, Historical Records<\/i>. It emerged as a school \u201cduring the Warring States period [1],\u201d where it was generally known as the \u2018School of Forms and Names (hsing ming chia<\/i>),\u2019 or as the \u2018Dialecticians\u2019 (pien che<\/i>).\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong> (Fung Yu-lan 1952, \u00a0Vol. 1, p. 192).<\/p>\n

This school differs greatly from Confucian schools or other schools whose interest lies in social tradition, the ritual organization of upper-class social life, and the governance of the state.<\/p>\n

The School of Names originated from men who had specialized in the art of debate, and who used their talents on behalf of clients engaged in lawsuits. Through their tricks of sophistry, we are told, they were able to turn right into wrong, and wrong into right. A famous early \u201clawyer\u00a0\u00bb of this sort is Teng Hsi (died 501 B.C..), who, though himself earlier than rhe actual School of Names, has become linked to it in later times.<\/strong> (Fung Yu-lan 1952, p. XXXIII)<\/p>\n

\u201cThrough their tricks of sophistry, we are told, they were able to turn right into wrong, and wrong into right<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (supra): This characteristic is irresistibly reminiscent of the exploits attributed to and claimed by the Greek sophists.
\nThe term \u00ab\u00a0sophists\u00a0\u00bb is often used by Western scholars to designate this Chinese school \u00ab\u00a0because the mingjia<\/em> philosophers were often attacked for what their contemporaries felt as hair-splitting arguments.\u00a0\u00bb (China Knowledge, Mingjia<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Apparently, the negative coloration we attach to \u00ab\u00a0sophist\u00a0\u00bb also touched the word dialectician<\/em>
\nThese quotations are evidence of the prominence of this philosophic group during the period, and of the general application to it of the term, \u00ab\u00a0dialecticians.\u00a0\u00bb
\nHowever, Forke uses the term \u00ab\u00a0Chinese sophists\u00a0\u00bb without any pejorative connotation. Graham refers to them as \u00ab\u00a0disputers,\u00a0\u00bb as disputation is their method and area of expertise.
\nIt is a school of philosophers interested in paradoxes and language games. They explore language and push its potential to the point of paradox.
\nA group of authors and texts from the sixth to third century BCE are associated with this school (Fung Yu-lan, History… T1 1952, p. 192), including the following:<\/p>\n

Deng Xi (= Teng Hsi) (c. 546 \u2013 501 bce)
\nHui Shi (= Hui Shi = Huizi) \u00a0370\u2013310 bce
\nGongsun Long (= Kung-sun Lung) (c. 325\u2013250 bce)<\/p>\n

As in many other cases, these names may refer to the work of a single, historically identified author, to the uncertain author(s) of a tradition, or to several traditions grouped under the same label.
\nThese philosophers are language problems amateurs. especially interested in the problems of word designation, which they publicize through paradoxical and enigmatic statements.
\nTheir favorite tool is controversy, which they use as a means of testing the strength of their arguments and proving the impotence of common sense in the face of their paradoxes.<\/p>\n

The School of Names originated from men who had specialized in the art of debate, and who used their talents on behalf of clients engaged in lawsuits. Through their tricks of sophistry, we are told, they were able to turn right into wrong, and wrong into right. (Fung Yu-lan 1922, T. 1, p. 23)<\/p>\n

This last characteristic is irresistibly reminiscent of the Greek sophists.<\/p>\n

They exercised their debating skills particularly in the legal field.<\/p>\n

A famous early \u201clawyer\u201d of this sort is Teng Hsi<\/strong> (died 501 B.C.), who, though himself earlier than the actual School of Names, has become linked to it in later times. (id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

This is why they are considered the first legalists.<\/p>\n

2. \u201cThe disputers of the Tao<\/em>\u201d (<\/strong>Graham)<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span> Tsou-Yen inaugural program<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

\u201cDisputers\u201d \u2014<\/b> Graham uses the term \u201cdisputers\u201d to refer to a group of Mohist philosophers whose method and area of expertise was disputation:<\/p>\n

The least misleading appoach to Chinese disputation is through the thinkers who actually describe and operate the apparatus of disputation, the later Mohists. (Graham, p.19-20)<\/p>\n

Graham (1989) considers Tsou Yen’s programme as characteristic of this tradition.
\n(Tsou Yen: c. 340\u2013260 BCE).<\/p>\n

\n

[1] Warring States<\/strong>, (475\u2013221 bce<\/span>): designation<\/a> for seven or more small feuding Chinese kingdoms whose careers collectively constitute<\/a> an era in Chinese history. The Warring States period<\/a> was one of the most fertile and influential in Chinese history.
\nhttps:\/\/www.britannica.com\/event\/Warring-States<\/a><\/p>\n

Han dynasty:<\/b> an imperial dynasty of China, \u2013202, 220 (*)
\n\u00ab\u00a0Spanning over four centuries, the Han dynasty is considered a golden age in Chinese history<\/a>, and had a permanent impact on Chinese identity in later periods.\u201d
\n(*) with a brief interruption (9, 23)
\nhttps:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Han_dynasty<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

R\u00e9f\u00e9rences<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Annals of<\/em> L\u00fc Buwei<\/em>. A Complete translation and study by John Knoblock and Jeffrey Riegel. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.<\/p>\n

Forke, Alfred, 1901. The Chinese sophists. Journal of the North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society<\/em>, XXXIV, Changhai 1901, pp. 1-100. Cit\u00e9 d’apr\u00e8s<\/p>\n

Graham, Arthur C.
\n\u2014 1989. Disputers of the Tao. Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. <\/em>La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
\n\u2014 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science<\/em>. The Chinese University Press, Chinese University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.<\/p>\n

Fung Yu-lan (pinyin<\/em> Feng Yu-lan)
\n\u2014 1952\/1967, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy<\/em>. Edited by Derk Bodde. New York, The Free Press.
\n\u2014 1922 A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 1. Period of the Philosophers. From the beginning to circa 100 BCE<\/em>. Translated by Derk Bodde. Introd., notes, bibliography and index. Princeton, Princeton University Press<\/p>\n

Maspero, Henri, 1933. Le sens du mot <\/em>Ming. Journal Asiatique, Paris, t. CCXXIII, p; 249-297<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

<\/h2>\n

<\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. \u201cThe disputers<\/span> of the Tao<\/em>\u201d (<\/strong>Graham)<\/strong>: Tsou-Yen inaugural program<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The least misleading appoach to Chinese disputation is through the thinkers who actually describe and operate the apparatus of disputation, the later Mohists. (Graham, p.19-20)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Graham prend comme point de d\u00e9part de cette tradition le \u00a0Tsou Yen Program<\/a><\/strong> \u2013340, ~\u2013260(?)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ATC\u00a0 THE \u00ab\u00a0SCHOOL OF NAMES\u00a0\u00bb DIALECTICIANS, DISPUTERS, SOPHISTS A period of transition Confucius lived from 551 to 479 BC, during the transition from the Spring and Autumn period (771\u2013481 BC) to the Warring States period (475\u2013221 BC). Mencius (380 \u2013 300 BCE) and Xunzi (c. 298 – c.238 BCE) belong are Confucianists. Fung Yu-lan describes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-14469","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14469"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15261,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14469\/revisions\/15261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}