Skip to main content
Log in

Horse-parts, White-parts, and Naming: Semantics, Ontology, and Compound Terms in the White Horse Dialogue

  • Published:
Dao Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article I argue against Chad Hansen’s version of the “White Horse Dialogue” (Baimalun) of Gongsun Longzi as intelligible through writings of the later Moists. Hansen regards the Baimalun as an attempt to demonstrate how the compound baima, “white horse,” is correctly analyzed in one of the Moist ways of analyzing compound term semantics but not the other. I present an alternative reading in which the Baimalun arguments point out, via reductio, the failure of either Moist analysis; in particular they point out how neither analysis accounts for ordinary, acceptable inferences like “There is a white horse; therefore there is a horse.” At issue for Gongsun Longzi is a fundamental problem with atomic terms: none of them seems capable of referring to a particular, “stand-alone” individual.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cheng, Chung-ying. 1983. “Kung-sun Lung: White Horse and Other Issues.” Philosophy East and West 33.4: 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1997. “Philosophical Significance of Gongsun Long: A New Interpretation of Theory of ‘Zhi’ as Meaning and Reference.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 24.2: 139–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Chung-ying, and Richard H. Swain. 1970. “Logic and Ontology in the Chih Wu Lun of Kung-sun Lung Tzu.” Philosophy East and West 20.2: 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, Christopher J. 2003. “Introduction: Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science after 25 Years.” In (the reprint edition of) A. C. Graham, Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

  • Geaney, Jane M. 1999. “A Critique of A. C. Graham’s Reconstruction of the ‘Neo-Mohist’ Canons.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.1: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Angus C. 1965. “Two Dialogues in the Kung-sun Lung-tzu: ‘White Horse’ and ‘Left and Right’.” Asia Major, n.s., 11: 128–152. Reprinted in Graham 1990.

  • _____. 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1990. Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1991. “Reflections and Replies.” In Henry Rosemont, Jr. (ed.) 1991.

  • Hansen, Chad D. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbsmeier, Christoph. 1991. “The Mass Noun Hypothesis and the Part—Whole Analysis of the White Horse Dialogue.” In Henry Rosemont, Jr. (ed.) 1991.

  • _____. 1998. Language and Logic in Traditional China. Volume 7, Part I of Kenneth Robinson (ed.), Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhonghua Daozang 中華道藏. 2003. Beijing 北京: Huaxia Chubanshe 華夏出版社.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Im Manyul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manyul, I. Horse-parts, White-parts, and Naming: Semantics, Ontology, and Compound Terms in the White Horse Dialogue. Dao 6, 167–185 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-007-9010-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-007-9010-4

Keywords

Navigation