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.
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.
_____. 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.
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.
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.
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.
_____. 1990. Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature. Albany: State University of New York Press.
_____. 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.
_____. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Zhonghua Daozang 中華道藏. 2003. Beijing 北京: Huaxia Chubanshe 華夏出版社.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-007-9010-4