Logic has a bad reputation. Complaints vary from it being too abstract to it being reductive, and famously for it being too ‘mathy’. But what is too often overlooked is the window logic provides us into the foundations of our language. Thus, we can peer into the mental processes that structure our thought and give way to the epistemological megaprojects our societies take on. Logic rules start to make sense when people practice them in their real life. Ethical arguments are only convincing when they sound logical. Yet ethical principles vary depending on where you are. Therefore, logic also can be used as a very revealing comparative tool. Chinese logic rules, for example, shaped and entailed a different logical structure of thinking from the logical framework of Western civilisation. It starts with a different presumption about living in a changing world. Being aware of these significant logical differences between Chinese and Western traditions, one can re-examine statements and arguments in Confucianism more accurately and appreciate Confucianism as it is – beyond being simply stereotypes of non-western worldviews.
Thus, it will not suffice to simply compare the Confucian thinking process to the Aristotelian tradition, the prominent system of logic in the West. Instead, it is important to shift one’s perspective from a one-to-one comparison of the two styles to looking at both traditions using the concept of a set. Borrowing from Set Theory opens a new opportunity for mutual understanding. In so doing, I hope to offer an accurate picture of what classical Chinese philosophers have to say about virtue and some of the moral arguments made by them.
According to Western logic, ostensive definition is a kind of denotative definition, in which the objects denoted by the term being defined are referred to by means of pointing, or with some other gesture. Buried in many logical concepts, rules, and principles, ostensive definition does not play a major role in the Western traditional logic. Instead, when introducing it, logicians always point out the limitation and ambiguity of ostensive definition. For example, it can only point at particulars, not forms or abstract concepts. It is not accurate and is ambiguous. For instance, when one points at a desk, and says, ‘It is a desk’, whether the books on the desk are included or not cannot be determined. The claim remains vague.
The rest of this article is only available to subscribers.
Access our entire archive of 350+ articles from the world's leading writers on Islam.
Only £3.30/month, cancel anytime.
Already subscribed? Log in here.
Not convinced? Read this: why should I subscribe to Critical Muslim?