《墨经》消解的五个悖论的起源及性质考论  

A Textual Criticism on the Origins and Characteristics of the Five Paradoxes Resolved in Mojing

作　　者：杨武金[1] Yang Wujin

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学哲学院

出　　处：《哲学研究》2023年第3期79-86,127,共9页Philosophical Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“广义逻辑悖论的历史发展、理论前沿与跨学科应用研究”(编号18ZDA031)的子课题“中国古代典籍中的悖论思想研究”(编号2019010245)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：中国古代典籍中究竟有没有出现过严格意义上的悖论,这是中国逻辑史和悖论研究领域中,学者们一直热衷讨论的重要问题。作为中国古代逻辑思想最为重要的代表性典籍,《墨经》讨论了言尽誖、非诽、学无益、知知之否之足用、仁义之为内外等悖论。本文通过准确考察这五个悖论的含义和基本来源,初步认定它们多来自儒家或道家的主张。墨家对这五个悖论形成了或语义或语用角度的理解,并运用逻辑分析的方法对其作了消解。通过分析悖论这一概念的含义和基本特征,可以看出,墨家所提炼和消解的这些悖论在本质上是逻辑矛盾,而儒家或道家所主张的论题则属于辩证矛盾,属于某种严格意义上的非逻辑悖论,即渗透了独特思想文化内涵的哲学悖论或科学文化悖论。区分两种不同悖论,或许更有助于把握墨家和先秦儒家、道家各自思想的特质。Whether a paradox in the strict sense was proposed by ancient Chinese classics remains an important issue always keenly discussed d by scholars on Chinese history of logics and paradox studies.As the most significant representative of logical thoughts in ancient China,Mojing dealt with paradoxes such as“to take all words to be completely false”,“negating criticism”,“to take learning to be of no benefit”,“knowing something and not knowing something to be sufficient for use”,“to take benevolence as being internal and righteousness as being external”,and etc.By analyzing the very meanings and basic features of these so-called“five paradoxes”in Mojing,we are in a provisionary position to state that these paradoxes probably came from Confucianism or Taoism.Furthermore,through an explication of the definition and basic features of“paradox”,we can also conclude that these paradoxes resolved by,Mohism are essentially logical contradictions,whereas those corresponding propositions insisted on by Confucianism or Daoism fall under the category of dialectical contradictions,i.e.,a species of philosophical or scientific-cultural paradoxes which are permeated with unique ideological as well as cultural connotations.

关 键 词：悖论 《墨经》 逻辑矛盾 辩证矛盾 

分 类 号：B81-092[哲学宗教—逻辑学] B224