Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-b2xwp Total loading time: 0.232 Render date: 2022-09-29T06:49:38.716Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Chinese Language, Chinese Philosophy, and “Truth”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Abstract

Pre-Han philosophical tradition did not address issues for which the concept of truth was central. Classical Chinese philosophy had virtually no metaphysical theory. The theory of language was mainly pragmatic. The semantic doctrines that were developed focused on terms rather than sentences or sententials. The Chinese theory of knowledge was primarily a theory of know-how and was not based on contrast between knowledge and belief. Chinese philosophy of mind treated heart-mind as a cluster of dispositional attitudes to make distinctions and to act upon, not as a repository of cognitive content about the world. Discussions of inference and semantic paradoxes used explicitly pragmatic terms rather than semantic ones. These differences can be partially explained by features of classical Chinese language in which compositional sentencehood is not important or syntactically obvious, and in which the counterparts of propositional attitudes take terms rather than sentences as objects.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Chan, Wing-tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tzu, Chuang. 1956. A Concordance to Chuang Tzu. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, vol. 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dubs, Homer. 1927. Hsun Tzu: Ancient Moulder of Confucianism. London: Probstain.Google Scholar
Graham, A. C. 1970. “Chuang Tzu's Essay on Seeing Things as Equal.” Journal of the History of Religions 9, nos. 2–3: 137–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, A. C. 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Science. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Chad. 1976. “Mass Nouns and ‘A White Horse Is Not a Horse.’Philosophy East and West 26, no. 2(March): 189209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Chad. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, Charles, and Weiss, Paul, editors. 1935. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tzu, Hsun. 1966. A Concordance to Hsun Tzu. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, vol. 22. Taipei: Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center.Google Scholar
Shih, Hu. 1919. Chung-kuo Che-hsueh Shih Ta-kang [Outline of Chinese Philosophy 1. Vol. 1. Taipei: Shanghai Book Co.Google Scholar
Shih, Hu. 1963. The Development of Logical Method in Ancient China. New York: Paragon.Google Scholar
Leslie, Donald. 1964. Argument by Contradiction in Pre-Buddhist Chinese Reasoning. Canberra: Australian National University, Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Mei, Yi-pao. 1929. Mo Tzu: The Neglected Rival of Confucius. London: Probstain.Google Scholar
Tzu, Mo. c. 400 B.C. The Canon of Mo Tzu. Various.Google Scholar
Tzu, Mo. 1974. A Concordance to Mo Tzu. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, vol. 21. Taipei: Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center.Google Scholar
Munro, Donald J. 1969. The Concept of Man in Ancient China. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Needham, Joseph. 1954. Science and Civilization in China. Vol. 2. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1957. Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Ed. Tomas, Vincent. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Steven P., editor. 1977. Naming Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Junjiro, Takakusu. 1956. The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy. Ed. Chan, Wing-tsit and Moore, Charles A.. Honolulu: Office Appliance Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Watson, Burton. 1963. Mo Tzu: Basic Writings. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
46
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Chinese Language, Chinese Philosophy, and “Truth”
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Chinese Language, Chinese Philosophy, and “Truth”
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Chinese Language, Chinese Philosophy, and “Truth”
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *