The paraconsistent thought of Ancient China

Wujin Yang

Renmin University of China

There was extremely rich thought of paraconsistent in ancient China. Priest and Lu Telie believed, Eastern philosophy has generally been more tolerant of inconsistency, more amenable to paraconsistent approaches than Western (Priest G., Routley R., Norman J., Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent. Munich: Philosophia Verlag,1989,p5.)    However, the paraconsistent thought in ancient China is not through a set of theses that can be simply pointed to as evidence of paraconsistent approaches, but in the way contradictions are tolerated and used to illustrate points. For instance, the Laotse’s Tao contains the definite elements of paraconsistency. The book Laotse contains massive paradox propositions. Laotse Said, “Do nothing and everything is done”. But a theory may contain paradoxes, or apparent contradiction, without necessarily containing any unresolved or apparent contradictions. For example, Meinong’s object theory just contains obvious paradox, that is to say,“There are things of which it is true that there are no such things”. However there are at least consistent subtheories of the theory of object, that is to say, Meinong’s object theory is not the theory of without any meaning. It is obvious to the Taoists , the law of Non-contradiction was constantly being flaunted. In fact, Mohists, Sophisms and the “School of Forms and Names” have some claim to be accounted early paraconsistents. Hence the extraordinary influence of the traces of dialectical or dynamic logic in the ancient Chinese thinkers. For instance, Hui Shih who was known as the “Dialecticians” or the “School of Forms and Names” , Realized the contradictory nature of the world and the universe to a certain extent. The book "Chunang-Tzu•The world" said, “Hui Shih knows all kinds of things, his works can load five big vehicles”. Although the many works of Hui Shi have been lost, some of the paradoxes he propounded have been recorded in the Chunang-Tsu. In the book, the sixth paradox there presented is “The South has no limit and has a limit”, which has the apparent form p and nonp.

It is most noteworthy that there was a philosopher named Deng Xi of ancient China BC 6. He is the thought founder of the “School of Forms and Names” at pre-Qin dynasty, “The theory of which both will do” is Deng Xi’s  important theory content. It is said that, Deng Xi was an extremely famous “attorney” at that time. When others asked him to help to bring a lawsuit, He received money. A lawsuit story said, a wealthy person was drown to death in Zheng country at that time, but the Dead's corpse was obtained by other people. The rich person wanted to redeem this corpse, but the man who obtained the corpse asked a price too high. Thus, the rich person entreated  Deng Xi. Deng Xi said to him that, “You need not worry, he cannot sell to others.” The man who obtained the corpse very worried after he knew this, so, he also entreated  Deng Xi. Deng Xi also said to him that, “You need not worry, because he can not buy the corpse at other place.”

Deng Xi had simultaneously approved three pairs of mutually contradiction proposition here: the rich person should buy the corpse but also to be possible not to buy, both buy and not buy will do; The man who obtained the corpse should sell out the corpse but also to be possible not to sell, both sell and not sell will do; Not only say that one should buy and the other have to sell, but also say that one may not buy and the other to be possible not to sell, as soon as buy and sell with as soon as not buy or not sell. With the symbolic representation. Deng Xi proposes “The theory of which both will do” here, Simultaneously approves the two mutual deny proposition, but does not therefore approves all propositions. The main cause that Deng Xi’s thought in the history was usually accused as “sophistry” is that the denunciators look at any question through standing in the consistent standpoint. But, if we can stand in the standpoint of paraconsistent logic, Deng Xi has had the paraconsistent manner to the thing situation.At the last years of the Chinese Eastern Han Dynasty, a scholar whose name was Si Mahui, both his morals and literature tutelagey are ver good. At that time, Jing Zhou's ruler -Liu Biao’s heart was narrow. Because feared that Liu Biao harmed him, Si Mahui all uses to express answer “well” no matter who say something to him. Once, somebody’s son died and told him, Si Mahui also said that, “Very good!” So, Si Mahui’s wife really could not bear and blamed him to say that, “Others think you are a good person, therefore tell you, how had hears others to die the son, instead applauds!” Si Mahui didn’t not argue, He said to his wife that, “What you said extremely are also good!” Therefore, people gave Si Mahui a very appropriate nickname called “good guy” for him according to this custom.

Certainly, we say today that somebody is “good guy”, which obviously is a derogatory term, refers the man who stays on good terms with everyone, does not have any struggle with other, fails to consider right or wrong, only strives for to live in peace with each other. Other’s son has died, obviously is “not good”, but Si Ma hui said actually “very well”. Isn’t this short of the morals? But, Si Mahui actually is a good man. Isn’t this contradictory? Therefore, when his wife criticized him, Si Mahui also said that his wife's criticism was “well extremely”, that is to say, what Si Mahui said “very good” is not good. Why Si Mahui said like this, he had his goal which reflected his different manner at that time dealing with these issues. Because Si Mahui did not think all things were good, or right. Therefore, we can also say what Si Mahui adopted at that time is actually one kind of paraconsistent manners. But the underlying logic of this kind of paraconsistent manners is the paraconsistent logic.

The Sophisms of ancint China once proposed many theses that were accused as “sophistry”, like “The fire is not hot”, “The eyes can not see”, “The gauge can not draw circle”, “A chicken has three feet”, “Every cattle and sheep has five feet”, “Series can be solvable”, “A turtle is longer than a snake”, and so on. From the standpoint of paraconsistent logic, these theses are all extremely natural.