What is the meaning of "white horse not horse"? It was fooled by Gongsun Long

Dahe Network reporter Mo Shaohua

On January 5, top news netizens raised a question: During the ancient Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, Chinese academic thought could be described as "a hundred schools of thought contending and a hundred flowers blooming". It is a collision and liberation of ideas. Among them, the famous Gongsun Long is known for his cunning and eloquence, what kind of truth does the "white horse not horse" theory he put forward contain, and what kind of guidance does it have for today's philosophical thought?

First of all, let's talk about Gongsun Long. Gongsun Long was a Zhao guoren in the Warring States period, lived 70 years old, at that time has been a very long life, once did the Pingyuan Jun's doorman, is the representative of the hundred famous masters of the sons, its main work is "Gongsun Longzi", the book in the Western Han Dynasty has a total of 14 articles, the Tang Dynasty was divided into three volumes, the Northern Song Dynasty lost 8 articles, so far only 6 articles remain a total of one volume. The two most important of these are the "White Horse Theory" and the "Jianbai Theory", which put forward the arguments of "white horse is not a horse" and "leaving Jianbai", so Gongsun Long is also the main representative of the "Leaving Jianbai" school. The White Horse is a well-known representative work of sophistry, proposing the interrelationship between "individual" and "general" in logic, but exaggerating the difference between them, severing the connection between the two, and is a metaphysical system of thought.

The original text of "On the White Horse" can be used by everyone, let's take a look at the translated vernacular text -

One day, the representative of the famous family, Gongsun Long, rode into the city.

The soldier guarding the city said: "The royal law stipulates that horses crossing the city gate should pay taxes. ”

Gongsun Long said: "Horses crossing the city gate should pay taxes, but I am riding a white horse, and the white horse is not a horse, so it should not pay taxes." ”

The soldier said, "Of course the white horse is a horse, and you should pay taxes." ”

Gongsun Long asked rhetorically, "If the white horse is a horse, then the black horse is also a horse?" ”

The defender said, "Of course. ”

Gongsun Long continued, "According to your logic, the white horse is a horse, and the black horse is also a horse, so there is no difference between the white horse and the black horse. Therefore, the white horse is not a horse. ”

The soldier guarding the city was told by Gongsun Long that he did not know how to deal with it, and he nodded his head, but he was not moved, and said: "What you said is very reasonable, please pay for the horses." ”

In the end, Gongsun Long had to pay taxes for the horses in order to enter the city.

Gongsun Long's sophistry of his white horse and not horse has left many great Confucians speechless, and this allusion is similar to playing the piano against a cow.

In fact, the white horse is not a horse is a philosophical problem.

Philosophy pursues the truth of things, and in the face of the discussion of "white horses not horses", we must first understand its original meaning, otherwise we will fall into the logical fallacy of covering our ears and stealing bells. Here the "white horse" is the white horse, an animal with specific attributes. "Horse" is an animal like a horse, which is limited to the level of "species". The key to understanding this statement is to understand its logical conjunction "non", where "non" means "not", and the meaning of "is" is multiple, of which there are meanings such as "belonging" and "equivalence", and there is also a logical relationship of "contained in" and "equivalent to". The concept of "white horse" belongs to "horse", but it is not equivalent to "horse".

From a psychological point of view, the title of "white horse" implies its connection with "horse" in general cognition, while the judgment of "non-horse" violates logical inertia, thus causing a logical contradiction between common sense and rational judgment. Moreover, the words themselves are refreshing to read, easy to remember, and have a philosophical charm, which can show to a certain extent that the user has a tendency to think, so it has become a famous sophistry philosophical proposition fixed and circulated, in essence, it is the embodiment of the "semantic fallacy" in the category of logic in philosophy.

The debate of "white horse not horse" gives people the feeling of "although you can't understand it, it feels so powerful", you obviously feel that it is not right, but it seems that you can't argue with him. This is really only because of the ambiguity of the ancient Chinese expression: it can be expressed either that it contains no inclusion or equal to not equal. And the whole set of debates on the white horse and not the horse has been confusing people's thinking in the back and forth between inclusion and equality, and now our unfamiliarity with the text has been wrapped around.

But the problem is that Gongsun Long did not use the same concept and the same extension of the logic deduction routine, but used equal to not equal to your inclusion does not contain, so the result is that the chicken and the duck talk, the chicken and the duck all feel reasonable. This is almost a routine with Zhuangzi's "sub-fish".

In modern language, it is clear at a glance to explain mathematically the concept of subsets and complete sets. The horse as a set, defined as A. The white horse is part of the collection of horses, element B.

Two notations in set theory are used here, one is "∈", which indicates that the element is part of a set. The other is the most famous " = ≠ " , which means that two sets are equal or unequal.

So there are the following conclusions:

1.B∈A

2.B ≠A

The translated language is:

1.B belongs to A (established) = > B is A (established) = > "White horse is a horse" (of course it holds).

2.B is not equal to A (established) = > B non-A (established) = > "white horse not horse" (of course true).

"Yes" means belongs, "non" means not equal, which of course belongs to reasonable usage. Others can't argue with Gongsun Long, and it is obvious that Gongsun Long is not forced to clearly define the expression of "yes and no". From the conclusion, Gongsun Long is not wrong, this is not sophistry, it is a normal expression in set theory. And Gongsun Long did not contradict logic or common sense, because the above 1 and 2 can be established at the same time, but others are "fooled".

Gu Long said this: White horses are not horses, and girlfriends are not friends. Is the best understanding of this sentence!