Does traditional Chinese culture have logic, and if so, what kind of logic?

Yes. The dominant type of reasoning in ancient China was inference. The Mohists summarized this form of reasoning as:

Proposition deduction is carried out according to the principle of similarity, that is, the premise is selected according to the principle of similarity, and then the conclusion is deduced from the premise according to the same principle. This is the so-called "husband to the same way" in "Otori" and the so-called "to take by analogy, to give by analogy" in "Kotori".

As the thinkers of Confucianism and Mohism in the pre-Qin period, they all made excellent use of inferences when discussing and stating their political ideas and ethical concepts. For example, the Mohists were correct in their insistence on "non-fate" in opposition to the Confucian idea of "fate". The world's criticism of the Mohists is wrong, and "Kotori" has the following inferences:

First of all, the premise is selected according to the principle of similarity.

The premise of Mohist selection is: and go out, not out; Stop going out, stop going out. The world is the same.

What the previous sentence says is: If you are going to go out, you are not going out, and to prevent people from going out is to prevent people from going out. This is also "not the case", which is similar to the proposition to be proven.

The latter sentence indicates that what is said in the preceding sentence has the property that is recognized as correct by the world.

Secondly, according to the principle of similarity, the conclusion is deduced from the premise, that is, the proposition to be proved is correct.

Since the premise is "and go out, you don't go out; Stop going out, stop going out also "has the attribute of being recognized as correct by the world, then, the proposition to be proven" has a life, not a life; Non-attachment to life, non-life", should also have the attribute of being recognized as correct by the world. Because the principle of similarity tells people that things of the same kind have the same or similar properties. That's what Kotori says:

Dan goes out, not going out; Stop going out, stop going out. The world is the same. If it is fate, it is not fate; Non-attachment has life, and non-life is also.

No difficulty. This is the same as the other, the world has the other and the other is not self-right, the ink has this and the others are not, there is no other reason, the so-called inner glue and the outer closure and the heart is not empty, the inner glue is not solved. This is not the case.

48 In the process of developing from problems and solving problems, China's traditional mathematics has established an algorithm system characterized by constructiveness and mechanization, which is far from the so-called axiomatic deductive system of Western mathematics represented by Euclid's "Geometric Primitives". ”

Of course, there is an analysis of logic in many ancient Chinese books. Moreover, it can be said that many books have played the role of the suzerain, that is, the originator, in the development of world logic.

The formal logic in modern Wenchang is not universal, and the people of Azande have their own logic.

A further question is: What is it that restricts the Azandians from accepting without doubt what we consider to be clearly wrong arguments? According to the evidence provided by Evans-Pritchard, at least the following factors exist:

First, social factors. Evans-Pritchard points out that the reason the Azandians did not accept step 5 was that if they did, it would put the whole view of witchcraft in a paradox.

41) As Bloor observes, beliefs about witchcraft are the cornerstone of the social system of the Azandians, and a crisis of belief in witchcraft will lead to social change. (42) Therefore, in order to avoid such a situation, it is necessary to insist on rejecting step 5 and accepting step 5' by doing so.

Second, cultural factors. Evans-Pritchard also points out that the Azandian belief system is a web.

Their beliefs were interdependent, and if an Azandian renounced his belief in witchcraft, he would have to give up his belief in witchcraft and oracles as well. In this web of beliefs, each thread depends on every other thread, and he cannot escape from this web because it is the only world he knows. This web is not an external structure that encloses him in it, but a structure of thought, and he cannot imagine that his mind is wrong.

43) Thus, their arguments constitute a "necessary" path in the Azandian belief web.

Third, purpose and contextual factors. Evans-Pritchard explains the Azandians' inability to understand the inconsistencies in their arguments because they have no theoretical interest in the subject of inconsistency; At the same time, the scenario in which they express their beliefs does not force them to turn their face to this topic.

As he described, the people of Azandian never asked oracles about whether someone was a wizard. Their goal is to find out if someone is performing witchcraft on another person in a particular environment, not whether someone was born a wizard. The Azandian has an interest in witchcraft simply because it is a force that is relevant to his own interests under specific conditions, and not because it is a permanent symptom of the individual.

44) Thus, when the Azandians were in a context related to witchcraft in their lives, their goal was to determine the real-time dynamic process of witchcraft under specific conditions, not to determine who the wizard was; Therefore, it is natural to ignore the relevant propositions that form the above contradictions.

Fourth, rules and constraints. As has been shown above, in the same context, the Azandians have the ability to repeatedly make arguments with the same structure, to choose between different methods and conclusions, to stand their own ground, and to reject different points of view. From this it is certain that:

They are clearly aware of the rules of their argument and the plausibility of their conclusions. According to Evans-Pritchard's description of the way Azandian society operates, as part of social life, this argument is intertwined with social institutions, belief systems, and thinking conventions, and the former cannot have any other way given the latter.

Each tradition can have different logical principles. Cultural traditions are diverse, colorful, and will not use one logical principle to bind all literary and cultural traditions, and cultural traditions can also have different logical principles.

None of them can be properly described within the framework of the logic of form-and-answer consolidation; Third, due to different cultural backgrounds, they each have different rules and modes of argumentation from non-formal logic.

1. Traditional logic, also known as "ordinary logic". It is different from formal logic of mathematical logic. It was founded in ancient times, and has been continuously enriched and developed and has been used to this day, so it is called traditional logic.

2. Mathematical logic is also known as symbolic logic and theoretical logic. It is a branch of mathematics and is the discipline that studies logic or formal logic with mathematical methods.

3. The object of its research is the formal system after symbolizing the two intuitive concepts of proof and calculation.

4. Mathematical logic is an indispensable part of the foundation of mathematics. Although the word logic is included in the name, it does not belong to the category of pure logic.

1. The generation era and the founder are different;

2. Differences in the use of language;

3. Differences in logical concepts.

Traditional logic implies a linear way of thinking. A paradox arises when "formal" logic is regarded as the only way of thinking, and when the scope of "formal" logic is extended to all coarse images, especially in the economic field that requires complex thinking.

Modern logic is a logical system formed by exponential logic and mathematical logic. The basic feature of modern logic is formalization, that is, a set of specially made ideograms and paragraph numbers are used to represent concepts, judgments, and reasoning, and their formal structures are obtained, so as to transform the study of concepts, judgments, and reasoning into the study of symbols in the formal system.

Logic, as the logic of a trembling science, is both old and young. It has a long history and a long history. It has three major sources: the formal logic of ancient Greece, the logic of nominalism and argumentation of pre-Qin China, and the cause and clarity of ancient India.

Logic has a history of more than 2,000 years, and there are three birthplaces of it, namely ancient China, ancient India, and ancient Greece. "Zhuangzi Lu Thumb" cloud: "Reluctant to debate, tired of the till rope, channeling sentences (the word "棰ci" according to Wang Shumin said to supplement), Zen grasp defeat and wandering between the same and different between the solid and white, and the useless words of the reputation are not?

And Yang Mo is already. ”

Han Feizi Six Antis": "Yang Zhu, Mo Zhai, what the world has observed is also ......Although it is not an order for an official position. It can be seen from this that the Yang-Zhu school actively participated in the debate on the similarities and differences of Jianbai during the Warring States Period.

It is a pity that the views and contributions of the Yang-Zhu school in this regard are no longer known.

The words are different, the former is "traditional" and the latter is "modern".

A concept is a form of thinking that reflects the essential attributes and quantitative range of an object of thought. The concept includes the content of the concept and the scope of the concept, the former refers to the connotation, and the latter refers to the extension.

Definition – a logical way to clarify the connotation of a concept.

Partition – a logical approach to defining the extension of concepts.

White", "animal", "human", these are all concepts – but not definitions. Man is a rational animal - this belongs to the definition, using the most common genus plus species difference, genus in animals, species difference in rationality. What is defined is the connotation of the concept of people, and the definition is more clear than the concept.

If we only talk about the concepts of people, animals, and white, then their extension is very wide, and animals include amphibians, terrestrial animals, and so on. People have Germans, British, French, Chinese and so on, white with white clothes, white socks and so on. But if you follow the definition, you can say that the concept of man has a lot of extensions according to different divisions - how the concept of "man" is extended, but if you use the extension of the definition "man is a rational animal" - this seems a bit strange = = Because the definition is a tool for dividing the connotation, it can be said that the definition is something that is contained in some way by the concept.

Extensions fall into the category of divisions, and the definition is unlikely to include extensions = =