再谈无“是”即无逻辑——答程仲棠先生  

More Discussion about No Logic without 'to Be':in Response to Mr.Cheng Zhongtang

作　　者：王左立[1] 

机构地区：[1]南开大学哲学院,天津300071

出　　处：《河南大学学报（社会科学版）》2012年第3期14-20,共7页Journal of Henan University(Social Sciences）

基　　金：天津市哲学社会科学规划项目"意义研究的认知转向"(TJZX80-020)阶段性成果;南开大学亚洲研究中心资助项目"意义研究的方法论探索"(AS1106)阶段性成果

摘　　要：古汉语中没有系词,这是中国古代没能产生类似于传统词项逻辑推理理论的重要原因。程仲棠先生对这一观点提出了批评,认为它的错误在于把逻辑载体当做了逻辑本体;逻辑本体是客观的、唯一的,语言是逻辑的载体,不同的语言可以承载相同的逻辑本体。程先生的论证有失偏颇。第一,某种语言可以表述一种逻辑并不意味着使用这种语言就可以发明出该逻辑。第二,"逻辑本体"是一个形而上学的概念,对于逻辑学来说,它是一个不必要的假设。第三,传统逻辑的规则产生于自然语言的用法,古代汉语的特点使得中国古代先贤未能发明出类似于三段论那样的逻辑理论。There is no copula in ancient Chinese,which is an important reason why theory similar to traditional syllogistic logic did not come into being in ancient China.Mr.Cheng Zhongtang criticizes such a viewpoint,thinking it mistakenly takes logical carrier as logical noumenon,logical noumenon is objective,unique,different languages can carry identical logical noumenon.Mr.Cheng＇s argument is not sufficient.First,a language can express a logic does not mean that the logic can be invented with this language.Second,logical noumenon is a metaphysical concept,to logic,it is an unnecessary hypothesis.Third,the rules of traditional logic came from the usages of natural language,the characteristics of ancient Chinese language made it difficult for ancient Chinese people to invent logic theory similar to syllogism.

关 键 词：“是” 逻辑本体 形而上学 语言规则 

分 类 号：B81[哲学宗教—逻辑学]