Constructing a Chinese Logical Discourse System

Logic is the foundation of philosophy, and the development of any philosophy is inseparable from the development of logic. As one of the three major systems of logic in the world, alongside ancient Greek logic and Indian hetu-vidya, Chinese logic has presented different ideological forms in different historical periods since the pre-Qin era, playing a fundamental and extremely important role in the development of traditional Chinese culture and traditional Chinese philosophy. In recent decades, Western academic research on ancient Chinese logical thought has continuously developed. Analyzing this research and integrating its achievements into the construction of a contemporary Chinese logical discourse system holds certain enlightening significance for the construction of contemporary China's logical foundation and philosophical discourse system.

逻辑是哲学的基础，任何哲学的发展都与逻辑的发展密不可分。作为与古希腊逻辑、印度因明并称为世界三大逻辑体系源流的中国逻辑，自先秦以来在不同历史时期呈现出不同的思想形态，对中国传统文化和传统哲学的发展具有基础且十足重要的作用。近几十年来，西方学界对中国古代逻辑思想的研究不断发展，分析这一研究并将其成果融入中国当代逻辑话语体系的构建中，对当代中国逻辑基础和哲学话语体系的建设具有一定启示意义。

Western research on ancient Chinese logical thought unfolded against the backdrop of Sinological studies. It is generally believed that the European missionary Sinology of the 16th century marked the origin of Western Sinological research, and the translation and introduction of Chinese classics was the beginning of the eastward transmission of Western learning [1]1 "Eastward transmission of Western learning" (中学西传) refers to the historical process of Chinese classical texts and ideas being introduced to Europe, primarily by Jesuit missionaries from the 16th century onward.. From the late 19th to the early 20th century, Western research on Chinese culture and thought mostly focused on the translation and introduction of ancient Chinese literary works. Among these, the *Chinese Classics* series compiled by the British London Missionary Society missionary and Sinologist James Legge included translations of the "Four Books and Five Classics" [2]2 The "Four Books and Five Classics" (四书五经) are the canonical texts of Confucianism, comprising the *Great Learning*, *Doctrine of the Mean*, *Analects*, and *Mencius* (Four Books), and the *Book of Changes*, *Book of Documents*, *Book of Songs*, *Book of Rites*, and *Spring and Autumn Annals* (Five Classics)., many of which were the first translations in history. Legge's translation and introduction of ancient Chinese classics enabled the Western world to gain a deeper understanding of traditional Chinese thought and culture, and also opened a new chapter for Western scholars to systematically study Chinese philosophy and Chinese logical thought. In the early stages of Western Sinological research, scholars mainly understood the Chinese intellectual tradition through Confucian and Daoist classics, and logical thought was not the focus of their attention. On the one hand, this was because ancient Chinese philosophy "lacked clear and specialized logical works, with arguments on logical issues scattered across the works of different philosophical schools"; on the other hand, there was no clear consensus on the question of "whether China has logic." The first to pay attention to Chinese logical thought were German and French Sinologists, who made some preliminary attempts to clarify the forms of Chinese logical thought. At the same time, Western academic understanding of ancient Chinese logical thought at this stage also relied to a certain extent on the research results of Chinese scholars who had studied abroad, such as Hu Shi and Feng Youlan, who played an important role in the reception and dissemination of Chinese logical thought in Western academia. Hu Shi once pointed out: "Looking back over nine hundred years of Chinese philosophy, one cannot but deeply feel that the development of philosophy has been constrained and influenced by logical methods." [3]3 Hu Shi (1891–1962) was a Chinese philosopher, essayist, and diplomat, a leading figure of the New Culture Movement, who studied under John Dewey at Columbia University and advocated for pragmatism and the use of vernacular Chinese. Although Hu Shi recognized the supporting role of logical methods for the development of philosophy, in terms of research methods, he advocated explaining traditional Chinese *mingbian* (the study of names and argumentation) using Western logic, for example, comparing the Mohist concept of *xiao* (效) to deduction in Western logic, and the debate on similarity and difference to the methods of agreement and difference in causal relations. This method of using the West to explain China was proposed against the historical backdrop of modern China's poverty and weakness. It played a role in promoting the transformation of people's ways of thinking at the time and, to a certain extent, revealed the commonalities between Chinese logic and Western logic, but it did not fully reflect the uniqueness and intrinsic value of Chinese logical thought.

西方对中国古代逻辑思想的研究是在汉学研究的背景下展开的。一般认为，16世纪欧洲传教士汉学为西方汉学研究的起源时期，对中国典籍的译介是中学西传之滥觞。19世纪末至20世纪初，西方对中国文化和思想的研究多集中于对中国古代文学作品的译介。其中，英国伦敦会传教士、汉学家理雅各（James Legge）编写的《中国经典》系列包含对“四书五经”的翻译，其中不少经典的翻译都是历史上的首次尝试。理雅各对中国古代经典的译介，使西方世界得以更深入了解中国传统思想文化，也为西方学者系统研究中国哲学与中国逻辑思想开辟了新的篇章。在西方汉学研究的早期阶段，学者主要通过儒家和道家经典理解中国思想传统，逻辑思想并未成为其关注的重点。一方面在于中国古代哲学中“没有明确的专门的逻辑著作，对逻辑问题的论点散见于不同的哲学学派的著作中”，另一方面在于对“中国是否有逻辑”这一问题尚未达成清晰认识。最早关注到中国逻辑思想的是德国和法国的汉学家，他们在廓清中国逻辑思想形式方面做了一些初步尝试。同时，这一阶段西方学界对中国古代逻辑思想的理解也在一定程度上依赖于胡适、冯友兰等留学海外的中国学者的研究成果，他们在西方学界对中国逻辑思想的接受与传播中发挥了重要作用。胡适曾指出：“回顾九百年来的中国哲学，不能不深感哲学的发展受到逻辑方法的制约影响。”尽管胡适意识到逻辑方法之于哲学发展的支撑作用，然而在研究方法上，胡适主张以西方逻辑解释中国传统名辩学，如把墨家所说之“效”比附为西方逻辑中的演绎；同异之辩为因果关系中的求同、求异法。这种以西释中之法是在近代中国积贫积弱的历史背景下提出的，对当时人们思维方式的转变起到促进作用，也在一定程度上揭示了中国逻辑与西方逻辑的共通性，但是尚未充分体现中国逻辑思想的独特性与内在价值。

Entering the 1950s, the specialization of the subject matter in Western academic interpretations of ancient Chinese logical thought gradually moved research beyond traditional Sinological explanations, shifting towards deeper studies of doctrinal principles. In this process, a phenomenon emerged of using either the framework of traditional Western logic or modern logical deductive systems to interpret ancient Chinese logic. However, the framework of Western logic is in many cases not suitable for explaining ancient Chinese modes of thinking. Specifically, ancient Chinese logical thought emphasized practical reasoning and pluralistic modes of explanation, while Western logic relies more on formalized, abstract reasoning. This difference led to conflicts and transformations in theoretical frameworks when Western scholars attempted to incorporate ancient Chinese logical thought into the Western logical system. In the 1960s, the view that "China has no logic" prevailed in Western academia. The French philosopher Th. Ziehen pointed out in his *Textbook of Logic*: "Chinese philosophical books seem to have almost completely ignored logic and epistemology. Only Laozi—who founded Daoist philosophy about fifty years before Confucius—is said to contain some propositions of logic and epistemology." [4]4 Th. Ziehen (1862–1950) was a German psychiatrist and philosopher; his *Textbook of Logic* (Lehrbuch der Logik) was published in 1920. J. M. Bochenski also mentioned in the introduction to the 1961 English edition of *A History of Formal Logic*: "Logic originated in two and only two cultural areas: the West and India. Elsewhere, for example in China, we occasionally find a method of discussion and sophistry, but no formal logic in the Aristotelian sense." [5]5 J. M. Bochenski (1902–1995) was a Polish-born Dominican priest and logician, known for his work on the history of formal logic and Soviet philosophy. These views reflected the widespread misunderstanding and underestimation of Chinese philosophy, especially Chinese logic, in Western academia during the 1960s. Limiting the origins of logic to the West and India, this prejudice reflected a narrow Western understanding of the concept of "logic," failing to comprehensively evaluate Chinese logical thought, especially its evolution and complexity across different historical periods, and overlooking the unique modes of thinking and reasoning methods within the Chinese logical tradition.

进入20世纪50年代，西方学界阐释中国古代逻辑思想主体的专业化使研究逐渐超越传统的汉学解释，转向更加深入的义理研究。在此过程中出现单一运用西方传统逻辑知识框架或现代逻辑推演系统解读中国古代逻辑的现象。然而，西方逻辑学框架在许多情况下不适用于解释中国古代的思维方式。具体来说，中国古代逻辑思想强调的是实践性的推理和多元的解释方式，西方逻辑则更多依赖形式化、抽象的推理。这种差异导致西方学者在将中国古代逻辑思想纳入西方逻辑体系中时面临理论框架的冲突与转换问题。20世纪60年代，西方学界盛行“中国无逻辑”论。法国哲学家泰·齐亨在《逻辑教程》中指出：“中国的哲学书籍似乎几乎完全忽略了逻辑学和认识论。唯有老子——生活在孔子之前约五十年——创立的道家哲学，据说包含一些逻辑学和认识论的命题。”波亨斯基（J. M. Bochenski）在《形式逻辑史》1961年英文版导言中也提到：“逻辑的发源地有两个而且只有两个文化区域：西方和印度。在其他地方，例如中国，我们偶尔会发现一种讨论的方法和诡辩，但没有亚里士多德意义上的形式逻辑。”这些观点反映了20世纪60年代西方学界对中国哲学，特别是中国逻辑的普遍误解和低估。将逻辑学的发源地局限于西方和印度，这种偏见体现了西方对“逻辑”概念的狭隘理解，未能全面评估中国逻辑思想，尤其是在不同历史时期的演变和复杂性方面，忽略了中国逻辑传统中独特的思维方式和推理方法。

With the further deepening of cultural exchange between East and West, especially the increase in interest in the holistic study of Chinese philosophy, Western academic researchers engaged in the study of Chinese logic gradually shifted from Sinologists to professional philosophers and logicians. The assertion that "China has no logic" also gradually gave way to a recognition of the uniqueness and richness of the Chinese logical tradition. This transformation was not only facilitated by the inclusion of the entry "Chinese logic" for the first time in the *New Encyclopaedia Britannica* (1973 edition), marking the first formal inclusion of "Chinese logic" in an authoritative Western encyclopedia, but also benefited from the promotion of a group of professional scholars represented by A. C. Graham, Chad Hansen, Chung-Ying Cheng, and Christoph Harbsmeier. Chung-Ying Cheng creatively proposed three levels for the study of ancient Chinese logical thought: studying the issues of explicitly articulated reasoning, theories of argumentation logic, and the scientific methodology of explanation and confirmation; studying the implicit expression of logic, semantic models, and their connectives and categories; and studying concepts such as truth, necessity, reality, and experience. [6]6 Chung-Ying Cheng (1935–) is a Chinese-American philosopher, founder of the *Journal of Chinese Philosophy*, known for integrating Chinese and Western philosophical traditions. These discussions, to some extent, provided new perspectives for understanding ancient Chinese logical thought.

随着东西方文化交流的进一步深入，尤其是对中国哲学整体性研究兴趣的增加，西方学界从事中国逻辑的研究者逐步从汉学家转变为专业的哲学家、逻辑学家，“中国无逻辑”的论调也逐渐转向正视中国逻辑传统的独特性和丰富性。这一转变不仅得益于《新英国百科全书》（1973年版）首次收录了“中国逻辑”条目，标志着“中国逻辑”首次被正式写入西方权威的百科全书，还离不开以葛瑞汉（A. C. Graham）、陈汉生（Chad Hansen）、成中英（Chung-Ying Cheng）、何莫邪（Christoph Harbsmeier）等为代表的一批专业学者的推动。成中英创造性地提出中国古代逻辑思想研究的三个层面，即研究关于明确表述了的推理、论证逻辑理论以及说明和确证的科学方法论问题；研究逻辑的隐性表达、语义学模式及其联结词和范畴；研究关于真理、必然性、实在性、经验等概念。这些讨论在某种程度上为理解中国古代逻辑思想提供了新角度。

Entering the 21st century, Western research on ancient Chinese logical thought has gradually broken free from the limitations of "Western-centrism." With the development of interdisciplinary research, scholars have further explored the characteristics of ancient Chinese logical thought from perspectives such as linguistics and cognitive science, increasingly emphasizing the inherent characteristics and holistic study of Chinese logical thought. At the same time, within the framework of global philosophical and logical research, reflective work on previous studies has increased. A breakthrough achievement at this stage was Ian Johnston's 2009 publication *The Mozi: A Complete Translation*, the first complete English translation of the *Mozi* by a Western scholar and the first bilingual version of the *Mozi* published in a European language. [7]7 The *Mozi* is a foundational text of Mohism, a school of thought founded by Mozi (c. 470–391 BCE), emphasizing universal love, meritocracy, and logical argumentation. At this stage, Western scholars have paid more attention to some highly controversial issues in the study of Chinese logic, such as the exploration of concepts like "truth," "meaning," and "necessity." Discussions of these issues have undoubtedly opened up new academic growth points for the study of ancient Chinese logic and accelerated the pace of Western research on ancient Chinese logical thought. Furthermore, many scholars have focused on interpreting Chinese logic within the discourse system of Chinese history and culture, emphasizing the close relationship between the uniqueness of Chinese logic and its historical and cultural background. The Romanian scholar Jana S. Rošker, when discussing types of ancient Chinese reasoning, pointed out that there is an objective connection between logic and culture, which is mainly manifested in logic being constrained by culture. Traditional Chinese logic is the logic that developed in the pre-Qin period; it is an independently developed logical discourse that was not influenced by any other culture. Therefore, the understanding of the Chinese logical tradition must also be placed within the framework of its historical and cultural development. [8]8 Jana S. Rošker (1960–) is a Slovenian sinologist and philosopher, specializing in Chinese logic and comparative philosophy.

进入21世纪，西方对中国古代逻辑思想的研究逐渐摆脱“西方中心主义”的局限。随着跨学科研究的发展，学者们从语言学、认知科学等角度进一步挖掘中国古代逻辑的思想特征，愈加重视中国逻辑思想的内在特性与整体性研究。同时，在全球哲学与逻辑学研究的框架下增加了对以往研究的反思工作。这一阶段的突破性进展是艾乔恩（Ian Johnston）于2009年出版的《墨子全译》（The Mozi: A Complete Translation），这是第一部由西方学者完成的《墨子》英文全译本，也是第一部以欧洲语言出版的双语版本《墨子》。该阶段西方学者更加关注中国逻辑研究中一些极具争议性的议题，如对“真理”“意义”“必然性”等概念的探讨。对这些问题的讨论无疑开辟了中国古代逻辑研究新的学术增长点，加快了西方中国古代逻辑思想研究的步伐。此外，还有不少学者注重将中国逻辑置于中国历史文化的话语体系中解读，强调中国逻辑的独特性与其历史、文化背景之间的密切关系。罗马尼亚学者罗亚娜（Jana S. Ro?觢ker）在谈到中国古代推理类型时指出，逻辑与文化存在客观联系，这种联系主要表现在逻辑受到文化的限制。中国传统逻辑是先秦发展起来的逻辑，它是一种独立发展的逻辑话语，没有受到任何其他文化的影响，因此对中国逻辑传统的理解也要置于其历史和文化发展的框架内。

In the internationalization process of Chinese logical research, the research achievements of Western scholars have not only provided rich research materials and broad research perspectives for Chinese logical studies but have also brought more angles for the interpretation of the history of Chinese logic. At the same time, Western research has certain limitations in its cultural context and research methods, which require reflection by Chinese logical scholars during their research. For example, although the use of formalized methods to study ancient Chinese logic has its creative aspects, it often a priori presupposes that ancient Chinese logic and Western logic share the same formal characteristics, namely a rigorous two-valued extensional formal system. This presupposition overlooks the close connection between Chinese logic and its cultural origins, especially failing to fully consider the unity of ancient Chinese logic with its cultural background, including subjective consciousness, humanistic environment, moral principles, and argumentative forms within the Chinese language. In addition, Western research content is mostly concentrated in the pre-Qin period. [9]9 The pre-Qin period refers to the era before the unification of China by the Qin dynasty in 221 BCE, a formative period for Chinese philosophy and logic, including the Hundred Schools of Thought. Although this period was indeed an important peak in the development of Chinese logical thought, the development of Chinese logical thought did not stop there; the spread and influence of ancient Indian hetu-vidya [10]10 Hetu-vidya is the ancient Indian Buddhist tradition of logic and epistemology, which was transmitted to China and influenced Chinese logical thought. and Western logic in China should also be taken into account.

在中国逻辑研究的国际化进程中，西方学者的研究成果不仅为中国逻辑学研究提供了丰富的研究材料和广阔的研究视野，还为中国逻辑史的诠释带来了更多角度。与此同时，西方研究在其文化语境以及研究方法上存在一定的局限，需要中国逻辑学者在研究时进行反思。例如，尽管运用形式化的方法研究中国古代逻辑有其创造性的一面，但往往先验地预设了中国古代逻辑和西方逻辑具有相同的形式特征，即一个严密的二值外延形式体系。这一预设忽视了中国逻辑与其文化源流之间的紧密联系，尤其是未能充分考虑中国古代逻辑与其文化背景，包括主体意识、人文环境、义理与论式在汉语中的统一。另外，西方的研究内容多集中于先秦时期。尽管这一时期确实是中国逻辑思想发展的重要高峰，但中国逻辑思想的发展并未止步于此，古印度因明和西方逻辑学在中国的传播、影响也应当考虑在内。

With the continuous improvement of China's comprehensive national strength and international status, the international community's attention to China has gradually increased, which provides an important opportunity for Chinese logical thought to go global. In this context, Western scholars' research on Chinese logic is increasingly valued. Grasping this research dynamic is of great significance for promoting the global dissemination of Chinese logical thought, and it also helps to promote cultural and academic exchanges and mutual learning between China and the West. The Western academic community's research on ancient Chinese logical thought provides an important reference system for Chinese logical studies. To achieve new breakthroughs in the study of Chinese logical thought, in addition to promoting modern transformation vertically, it is also necessary to achieve mutual learning between China and the West horizontally, fully drawing on Western scholars' interpretations of Chinese logical thought through the "other" perspective combined with Western academic theories. This not only helps to reflect on oneself from different cultural contexts but also forms a three-dimensional research model that connects the ancient and the modern and integrates China and the West through comparison. At the same time, in the construction of the discourse system of contemporary Chinese logic, it is necessary to base oneself on China's local cultural and historical background, maintain cultural confidence, avoid blindly "interpreting China through the West" by relying on Western interpretive frameworks, and, on the basis of mutual learning between Chinese and Western civilizations, more accurately present the unique value of the Chinese logical thought system in the global academic context.

随着中国综合实力和国际地位的不断提升，国际社会对中国的关注逐渐增加，这为中国逻辑思想走向世界提供了重要契机。在此背景下，西方学者对中国逻辑的研究日益受到重视，掌握这一研究动态对推动中国逻辑思想的全球传播具有重要意义，同时也有助于促进中西方文化和学术的交流互鉴。西方学界对中国古代逻辑思想的研究为中国逻辑学研究提供了重要参照系，中国逻辑思想研究要实现新的突破，除了在纵向上推动现代转换，还要在横向上实现中西互鉴，充分借鉴西方学者通过“他者”视角，结合西方学术理论对中国逻辑思想进行的阐释。这不仅有助于从不同文化语境出发反观自我，还能在对比中形成一种贯通古今、融贯中西的立体研究模式。同时，在当代中国逻辑学话语体系建设中，要立足中国本土的文化历史背景，保持文化自信，避免依赖西方的解读框架盲目“以西释中”，在中西文明互鉴的基础上，更加精准地呈现中国逻辑思想体系在全球学术语境中的独特价值。

(The authors are researchers at the Institute of Modern Logic and Applied Logic, Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University; and professors in the Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University.)

（作者系南京大学哲学系现代逻辑与应用研究所研究员；南京大学哲学系教授）

Online editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧