# Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015 > [!cite] > Rošker, Jana S. ‘Classical Chinese Logic’. *Philosophy Compass*, vol. 5, no. 10 (2015), pp. 301–309. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12226. > [!abstract] Abstract > The present article provides an introduction to classical Chinese logic, a term which refers to ancient discourses that were developed before the arrival of significant external influences and which flourished in China until the first unification of China, during the Qin Dynasty (221 BC). Taking as its premise that logic implies both universal and culturally conditioned elements, the author describes the historical background of Chinese logic, the main schools of Chinese logical thought, the current state of research in this area and the crucial concepts and methods applied in classical Chinese logic. The close link between Chinese logic and the Chinese language is also stressed. --- ‘Is logic a universal discipline, which means there is only one kind of logic? Or is it culturally conditioned, with many different logical systems? The answer depends on how we define logical reasoning. If we follow the narrow definition, which identifies or equates logic with the logical concepts, categories and methods that were developed in what we can call the Aristotelian or Stoic tradition, we could conclude that in traditional and pre-modern China, there was no logic. But if logic is instead understood as a rational form of reasoning focused on valid argumentation and its principles, many different approaches are possible.’ [[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|(Rošker 2015, 301)]] ^c0be71 ‘Classical Chinese logical thought never elaborated any explicitly systematic and comprehensive formulation of the laws of reason, nor did it produce a coherent system of symbolism for abstract reasoning. Prior to the 18th and early 19th centuries, Chinese thinkers had rarely encountered a systematic and well-formulated logical work. But as Cheng Chung-Ying (1965, 196) points out, this does not mean that classical Chinese thought lacked logical depth or consistency.’ [[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|(Rošker 2015, 301)]] ^ad758d ‘In China, logical reasoning was closely connected to language, especially with respect to semantic issues, and was determined by its tight relation to ethics.’ [[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|(Rošker 2015, 301)]] ^1c950c ‘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.’ [[Rošker, ‘Classical Chinese Logic’, 2015|(Rošker 2015, 301)]] ^6cc622