The characterization is not entirely
accurate (witness the philosophers discussed in these pages), but even if it
were it could not justify the special logic retort. If the use of analogy,
metaphor, or parables to illustrate ideas makes searching for consistent,
coherent interpretations a mistake, then very few of the luminaries of the
Western tradition could be interpreted rationally. Plato’s allegory of the cave
and Descartes’s metaphor of the evil demon are in fact powerful images
motivating their creators’ philosophical systems. Skillful use of analogy is crucial
to philosophical exposition, and there are no obvious reasons why sound
arguments cannot be expressed poetically. In fact, so few Western philosophical
classics are written in strict logical form that the exceptions (e.g., Spinoza’s
Ethics) stand out like “ cranes among
chickens.” So unless one regards Spinoza as the paradigm Western philosopher,
we have no reason to supposes the interpretation standards for Chinese
philosophy should differ radically from those for Western philosophy.
Chad Henson, Language and Logic in Ancient China.
沒有留言:
張貼留言