Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2013, Vol. 8 Issue (2) : 289-308
Parallelism in the Early Moist Texts
Thierry Lucas()
Faculty of Philosophy, Arts and Letters, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Download: PDF(322 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Parallelism is present everywhere in the early Moist texts: at the syntactic level, at the semantic level, between sentences, between sets of sentences, between argumentative structures. The present article gives many examples of the phenomenon: parallelism of insistence, insistence from top to bottom, insistence from bottom to top, parallelism with symmetry, parallelism involving negation, subcontraries and negation at deeper levels, parallelism of the argumentative structures. Logic is particularly applied to the study of parallelism involving negation. From the point of view of argumentation, it is shown that many of those constructions have an important role in supporting arguments such as: arguments of generalization, a fortiori arguments, arguments of exemplarity, consequentialist arguments, arguments by comparison. This study draws the attention to the importance of argumentation in the study of Moism and gives a new light on the argument by parallelism (mou 侔) in the “Xiaoqu”: It is a natural extension of what we call “parallelism involving negation,” already very common in the early Moist texts.

Keywords linguistic parallelism      early Moism      logic      argumentation      parallel propositions     
Corresponding Author(s): Thierry Lucas,   
Issue Date: 05 June 2013
 Cite this article:   
Thierry Lucas. Parallelism in the Early Moist Texts[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 289-308.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Thierry Lucas
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Thierry Lucas. The Logical Style of Confucius’ Analects [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 167-197.
[2] JIA Lumeng, HUNG Ching. From Assessment to Design: What Is Really Needed in Technology Accompaniment to Achieve Subject Constitution?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 73-92.
[3] NI Peimin. How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 29-35.
[4] XU Difei. Hintikka’s Logical Revolution[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 630-648.
[5] Thierry Meynard. What the “Failure” of Aristotelian Logic in Seventeenth Century China Teaches Us Today: A Case Study of the Mingli Tan [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 248-263.
[6] CHEN Bo. A Look Back at the Development of Logic in China since 1978[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 662-682.
[7] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
[8] ZHANG Junguo. A Critical Examination of Anselm’s Ontological Argument[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 137-150.
[9] Mircea Dumitru. On Toleration, Charity, and Epistemic Fallibilism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 671-679.
[10] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
[11] KE Xiaogang. Reason and Besinnung: Heidegger’s Reflections on Science in Contributions to Philosophy [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 430-443.
[12] López-Astorga Miguel. Logic, Pragmatics, and Types of Conditionals[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 279-297.
[13] Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
[14] LI Guo. Empirical Propositions and the Change of Language- Games[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 21-34.
[15] XU Zhaoqing. On Kripke’s Dogmatism Paradox: A Logical Dynamical Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 298-310.
Full text