名墨“唯谓之辩”异议  

The objection of the argument of Wei Wei between Mohist Canon and Mingshilun

作　　者：赵晓蕾 田立刚[1] ZHAO Xiaolei;TIAN Ligang(College of Philosophy, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China)

机构地区：[1]南开大学哲学院,天津300350

出　　处：《重庆理工大学学报（社会科学）》2020年第4期17-23,共7页Journal of Chongqing University of Technology（Social Science）

摘　　要：《墨经》和《公孙龙子·名实论》中都曾多次论及“名”“实”“谓”等概念。学界多认为二者围绕“唯谓”说展开过论辩,比如《墨经》中的“惟吾谓非名,则不可”“谓者毋惟乎其谓”等句,多被当做反对公孙龙“唯谓”说的证据。通过对《墨经》和《公孙龙子·名实论》的对比分析,借鉴已有研究成果,认为《墨经》并没有反对公孙龙的“唯谓”说,二者在正名的原则上确有很多共识,也可相互参证。但是对于“名”“实”“谓”等概念及它们之间的关系,《墨经》和《公孙龙子·名实论》的侧重点有所不同,进而在名实关系的稳定性问题上出现了分歧。《墨经》重视名实关系的稳定性,而《公孙龙子·名实论》更注重考察名实关系的变化。The concepts of Ming,Shi and Wei have been discussed in Mohist Canon and Gongsunlongzi for many times.Most scholars believe that the two have argued about the theory of Wei Wei.Some sentences,such as“only my predicates are not named”and“only predictors are not subject to their predicates”in Mohist Canon,are regarded as the evidence against Gongsunlong’s theory of Wei Wei.Based on the comparative analysis of Mohist Canon and Mingshilun and the existing research results,this paper holds that Mohist Canon did not oppose Gongsunlong’s theory of Wei Wei,and they had a lot of consensus on the principle of Zhengming.However,as for the concepts of Ming,Shi and Wei and their relations,the emphases of Mohist Canon and Mingshilun were different,and thus there were differences on the stability of the relationship between Ming and Shi.Mohist Canon attached great importance to the stability of the relationship between Ming and Shi,while Mingshilun paid more attention to the change of the relationship between Ming and Shi.

关 键 词：墨经 名实论 唯谓 名 

分 类 号：B21[哲学宗教—中国哲学]