Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T05:23:59.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chinese Language, Chinese Philosophy, and “Truth”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Get access

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.Google 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.Google 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