Right Words Seem Wrong: Neglected Paradoxes in Early Chinese Philosophical Texts
Philosophy East and West 56 (2):281 - 300 (2006)
| Abstract | This article presents and interprets a number of neglected paradoxes in early Chinese philosophical texts (ca. 500-100 B.c.). Looking beyond well-known paradoxes put forward by masters such as Hui Shi and Gongsun Long, it intends to complement our picture of Warring States and early Western Han paradoxical statements. The first section contrasts the neglected paradoxes with the well-known ones. It is contended here that our understanding of these latter paradoxes is hampered by a lack of context and that the neglected paradoxes possess an interpretative advantage by virtue of their being context-embedded. The second section presents an overview of three groups of neglected paradoxes, showing that the paradoxical effect of these paradoxes results from a challenge to the semantics of their central terms. The third section discusses the distribution of the paradoxes throughout the early literature and concludes that they typically appear in "Daoist" writings. The final section proposes a semantic-rhetorical interpretation. Placing the paradoxes against the background of the features and use of important terms, it is argued that they constitute unorthodox redefinitions and are formulated to influence the behavior and values of their intended audience. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWim Redeu (2006). Right Words Seem Wrong: Neglected Paradoxes in Early Chinese Philosophical Texts. Philosophy East and West 56 (2):281-300.
Wim Redeu (2006). Right Words Seem Wrong: Neglected Paradoxes in Early Chinese Philosophical Texts. Philosophy East and West 56 (2):281-300.
Haixia Zhong (2011). Definability and the Structure of Logical Paradoxes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (4):779 - 788.
Gary Mar & Paul St Denis (1999). What the Liar Taught Achilles. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (1):29-46.
Michael Clark (2002). Paradoxes From A to Z. Routledge.
Hartry Field (2007). Solving the Paradoxes, Escaping Revenge. In J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox. Oxford University Press.
Igor Douven & Lieven Decock (2010). Identity and Similarity. Philosophical Studies 151:59-78.
Barry Hartley Slater, Logical Paradoxes. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Thomas Forster & Thierry Libert (2010). An Order-Theoretic Account of Some Set-Theoretic Paradoxes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 52 (1):1-19.
Greg Restall (1993). Deviant Logic and the Paradoxes of Self Reference. Philosophical Studies 70 (3):279 - 303.
Alex Byrne (2004). How Hard Are the Sceptical Paradoxes? Noûs 38 (2):299–325.
Gregory Landini (2009). Russell's Schema, Not Priest's Inclosure. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (2):105-139.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-05-29Total downloads4 ( #178,800 of 549,546 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,546 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
