\[ **BT: [[knowledge]]** ] --- # logic ## history and philosophy of logic ### history and philosophy of logic in China [[If logic is defined solely as the categories and methods developed in the Aristotelian or Stoic tradition, then there was no logic in traditional and pre-modern China.]][^1] [[If logic is understood as a rational form of reasoning, focused on valid argumentation and its principles, then then it stands to being that there are many different approaches to logic and logical systems.]][^2] [[Classical Chinese logical thought never elaborated any explicitly systematic and comprehensive formulation of the laws of reason; however, this does not mean it lacked logical depth or consistency.]][^3] [[In ancient China, logical reasoning was closely connected to language, and was determined by its tight relation to ethics.]][^4] [[Although Chinese philosophy developed in connection with ethical ideas and meta-physical concepts, there was a close relationship between moral and metaphysical thought on the one hand, and logical reasoning on the other.]][^5] ##### Mohist school ‘In China, Mozi, a contemporary of Confucius, is credited with founding the Mohist school, whose canons dealt with issues relating to valid inference and the conditions of correct conclusions. However, they were non-productive and not integrated into Chinese science or mathematics.’[^6] ‘The Mohist school contained an approach to logic and argumentation that stresses rhetorical analogies over mathematical reasoning, and is based on the *three fa*, or methods of drawing distinctions between kinds of things. As classical Chinese philosophical logic was based on analogy rather than syllogism, fa were used as benchmarks to determine the validity of logical claims through comparison.[^7] ##### Logicians The Logicians were also known as the School of Names, School of Forms and Names, and the Disputers. They grew out of Mohism. Credited by some scholars for their ‘early invention of formal logic.’[^8] [^1]: Jana S. Rošker, ‘[[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|Classical Chinese Logic]]’, *Philosophy Compass*, vol. 5, no. 10 (2015), p. 301, https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12226. [^2]: Jana S. Rošker, ‘[[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|Classical Chinese Logic]]’, *Philosophy Compass*, vol. 5, no. 10 (2015), p. 301, https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12226. [^3]: Jana S. Rošker, ‘[[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|Classical Chinese Logic]]’, *Philosophy Compass*, vol. 5, no. 10 (2015), p. 301, https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12226. [^4]: Jana S. Rošker, ‘[[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|Classical Chinese Logic]]’, *Philosophy Compass*, vol. 5, no. 10 (2015), p. 301, https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12226. [^5]: Jana S. Rošker, ‘[[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|Classical Chinese Logic]]’, *Philosophy Compass*, vol. 5, no. 10 (2015), p. 301, https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12226. [^6]: ‘Logic in China’, Wikipedia, last edited 15 June 2024, 11:52 (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_in_China. [^7]: ‘Logic in China’, Wikipedia, last edited 15 June 2024, 11:52 (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_in_China. [^8]: ‘Logic in China’, Wikipedia, last edited 15 June 2024, 11:52 (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_in_China.