During the Warring States Period, what was the argument that "a white horse is not a horse" put forward by Gong Sunlong?

One of GongSunLong's famous debates is "A white horse is not a horse". There is a detailed argument that "a white horse is not a horse" in the existing Gongsun Zilong.

The proposition of "white horse is not a horse" put forward by Gong Sunlong and its debate on this proposition also reflect an important issue in dialectics-the relationship between similarities and differences. He discussed the above-mentioned problem that "identity includes difference itself" from another starting point, and reached the opposite conclusion with Hui Shi. Hui Shi looked at this problem from the perspective of concrete things. Starting from propositions, Gong Sunlong saw that in every proposition, such as "Lotus is a plant and rose is red", the connotation and extension of its subject and predicate are not exactly the same. As Engels said: "Whether in the subject or in the predicate, there is always something that the predicate or the subject cannot contain." But Engels pointed out that "the predicate must be different from the subject"; This is the reflection of the objective dialectics that "identity itself contains differences". Most people say, "A white horse is a horse." Gong Sunlong made a detailed analysis of this proposition and clearly pointed out the difference between subject and predicate. But he didn't know that such a difference was necessary and a reflection of objective laws. Instead, they are separated, abstracted and absolutized, thus reaching the conclusion of objective idealism and "white horse is not a horse". This is to fix the category. Its thinking method is metaphysical.

There is another problem involved here, that is, the relationship between general and individual. Lenin said: "Start with any proposition, such as leaves are green, Yifan is human, pug is a dog and so on." There is already dialectics here (as Hegel pointed out with genius): the individual is general. ..... That is to say, the opposite (the individual is opposite to the general) is the same: the individual must exist in connection with the general. Generally, it can only exist in individuals, only through individuals. Any individual (no matter what) is average. Everything is generally individual (part, aspect or essence). Anything in general can only roughly include all the individual things. No individual can be completely included in the general and so on. Any individual is associated with another individual (thing, phenomenon, process) after thousands of transformations. And so on. "("On Dialectics ","Complete Works of Lenin ",Volume 38, page 409) The identity of the individual itself has been transformed thousands of times, which is related to thousands of categories of the individual, that is, it is also related to thousands of commonalities. This is also the difference contained in the identity itself.

In a logical proposition, the subject represents the individual and the predicate represents the general. In the affirmative proposition, individual and general are the unity of opposites. In the proposition that a white horse is a horse, a white horse is an individual and a horse is ordinary. Strictly speaking, this particular horse is an individual. White horses are also common. The white horse only exists in association with the ordinary, and the horse can only exist in the white, yellow and dark horses, and can only pass through the white, yellow and dark horses. That is to say, there are always white, yellow, black and other colors of horses, and it is impossible to have horses without colors. This is the unity of two opposites, individual and general.

As for the proposition that "white horse is a horse", "white horse" is an individual and "horse" is average; But for this specific white horse, the specific white horse says that "white horse" is general, and this horse and that horse are individuals. "Horse" is generally the essence of a white horse; "White" is an aspect of a white horse; The word "horse" can only include all horses, because individual horses have different colors such as white, yellow and black, and "horse" does not represent any color. By the same token, no individual can be completely classified as general. This is the contradiction between the individual and the general.

The two opposites of individual and general are contradictory and unified, so the proposition that "a white horse is a horse" is not a simple equal sign but a dialectical unity. Gong Sunlong and others discovered the opposite of this dialectical unity. He used the proposition that "a white horse is not a horse" to express the contradiction between the individual and the general. This is his understanding of one aspect of objective dialectics.

In terms of logical meaning, Gong Sunlong discovered the relationship between the extension and connotation of nouns. As far as the extension of "horse" is concerned, the word "horse" includes a white horse, but as far as the connotation of "horse" is concerned, the word "horse" refers to the essential attribute of the horse, which is different from the concept represented by the word "white horse". You can't confuse these two nouns. This is also a contribution of GongSunLong.

Gong Sunlong's argument about White Horse can be divided into three points: The first point is: "A horse is a horse, so life is also a shape; White, so life color also; Fate is not fate, so it says, "A white horse is not a horse. "(On Gong Sunlongzi and White Horse) This is about the connotation of horse name and white horse name. The connotation of the name of the horse is the shape of the horse; The connotation of the name white is a color. The connotation of the name of a white horse is the shape and color of the horse. The connotations of these three names are different. So "a white horse is not a horse".

The second point is: "If you want a horse, you can have it. Ask for a white horse, Huang Ma dark horse can't cause. ..... So, there is a yellow black horse, there can be a horse, and there can be no white horse. A white horse is not a horse. " "Horse, there is nothing desirable in color, so yellow and black are so desirable. The white horse won the color, the yellow black horse won the color, and only the white horse answered. If you didn't go, you must have gone. Therefore, a white horse is not a horse. " This is an extension of the name of a horse and the name of a white horse. The extension of horse name includes all horses; The name extension of White Horse only includes White Horse. "Horse" is neither positive nor negative about color ("not moved by color"), so if we only need "horse", Huang Ma dark horse can meet our needs. However, "white horse" has both positive and negative opinions on color ("taking color from it"), so if we want a white horse, only a white horse can meet our needs, but the dark horse in Huang Ma can't. There is a difference between people who are not sure or negative about color and those who are positive or negative about color, so a white horse is not a horse ("people who have never been there, have never been there, so a white horse is not a horse").

The third point is: "A horse has its own color, so it has a white horse. Make a horse colorless and a horse like an ear. Riding a white horse? Therefore, white people are not horses. White horse, horse and white, horse and white are not horses. Therefore, a white horse is not a horse. " (ditto) This is a general explanation of the difference between a horse, a white horse and a white horse. Horses are generally just attributes of all horses, and there is no color attribute among them. Horses are just horses, that's all ("horses have ears"). A white horse is generally the property of all horses plus white property, so a white horse is not a horse.

Not only is the white horse not a horse, but it is also not white. "White, uncertain by white, forget it. A white horse is a white horse. White is not white. " The whiteness expressed by this white thing or that white thing is the whiteness of "what is white". "Ding" means fixed. The whiteness of this white object is fixed on this object, and the whiteness of another white object is fixed on that object. White is so general, it can also be said that it is "as white as (but) ears" and is not fixed on anything. It is "indefinite white". The whiteness of "uncertainty" is not noticed by most people; It has no effect on their daily life, so they say "forget it". However, "definite white" is concrete and individual white, not general and abstract "indefinite white". The white of a white horse is "definitely white" and "definitely white is not white", so a white horse is not white.

"White horse is not a horse" is a famous debate of GongSunLong. It is said that Gong Sunlong once argued with Kong Chuan, a descendant of Kong Qiu, on this issue. GongSunLong cited a story of Kong Qiu. The story says that the king of Chu lost a bow, and people around him have to find a way to get it back. He said, "The Chu people left a bow, but they got it. What more can they ask for?" Kong Qiu criticized the king of Chu and said, "The king of Chu was kind, but he failed. It is also said that people have lost their bows, and people only have bows. Why do you suffer? " Gong Sunlong said: It can be seen that Kong Qiu is different from the so-called man. If Kong Qiu is right, then my debate about "different from the so-called horse" is also right. Kong Chuan couldn't answer GongSunLong's words. A few days ago, Kong Chuan argued with Gong Sunlong again. Legend of Confucius: Kong Qiu's words are "Chu, the so-called king of Chu, not the so-called man of Chu." . ..... Anyone who talks about people always refers to people. Those who are still talking about horses are always called horses. Chu also; White is the true color. If you want to spread the people, you should go to Chu; If you want to clear your name, you shouldn't turn white. If we sincerely examine this truth, Gongsun Sheng's argument will be broken. "For the first paragraph of the debate between Gong Sunlong and Kong Chuan, see Gong Sunlong Ji Zifu. In the second paragraph, I only saw the article "Confucius Cong Gong Sunlong". Confucius is a fake book, and what he said is not necessarily historical facts. However, the words recorded in the book are logically meaningful. He gave an extended explanation to the proposition that "a white horse is a horse". According to this explanation, this proposition can be put forward like this. Gong Sunlong explained the connotation of this proposition. According to this explanation, this proposition can't be mentioned like this. Kong Chuan did not completely break Gong Sunlong's argument, but his words did have logical value.

The above is the basic argument of GongSunLong's White Horse Theory. From these arguments, we can see that Gong Sunlong did see the contradiction between subject and predicate in a proposition and the difference between general and individual. But he only stayed at this point, exaggerating this aspect unilaterally, thus denying the unity and interconnection between the general and the individual. According to his theory, since the general and the individual are opposite, they can generally exist without the individual, and generally do not need to include the individual or the individual does not need to be included in the general. This is what Gong Sunlong said, "So, there can be horses, only horses have ears, and white horses have horses." In this way, the subject-predicate relationship in a proposition is separated. Starting from this metaphysical thought, it is bound to regard the general as an independent and self-existent entity, thus leading to objective idealism. The proposition that "a white horse is not a horse" was originally based on some understanding of dialectics, but it turned out to be the opposite of dialectics.

Category: debaters such as Hui Shi and Gong Sunlong, who developed into famous artists in the later period.

Year: Warring States Period

Sequence code: 17- 15-07

Keywords: history of China's philosophy.

Column keywords: philosophy and religion

Source: New Edition of China Philosophy History.

Auxiliary classification: philosophy