Right Words Seem Wrong: Neglected Paradoxes in Early Chinese Philosophical Texts Author(s): Wim De Reu Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Apr., 2006), pp. 281-300 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4488018 Accessed: 17/10/2010 05:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West. http://www.jstor.org RIGHT WORDS SEEM WRONG: NEGLECTED PARADOXES IN EARLYCHINESE PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS WimDe Reu,Assistant Professor Departmentof Philosophy,National Taiwan University Well-knownversus Neglected Paradoxes Almost all well-known early Chinese paradoxescan be found in a mere three chap- ters of literature.They appear in short lists compiled by intellectualopponents. First, the chapter "Tianxia"~T (Under heaven) of the Zhuangzi E- gives a description of the philosophiesof some WarringStates thinkers and ends with a discussionof the thoughtof Hui Shi . The authorof this chapterenumerates ten paradoxicalstate- ments ascribed to Hui Shi, followed by a list of twenty-one paradoxes used by the bianzhe * (disputers)in debate with Hui Shi. Further,the chapter "Zhengming" IE? (Rectifyingnames) of the XunziAi7F presentsa threefoldclassification of para- doxes. It includes, among others, paradoxes propounded by the LaterMohists as well as by Song Xing ~fF, Hui Shi, and Gongsun Long /[~.' Finally,another chapter of the Xunzi, "Bugou"Ti (Nothing indecorous),attributes a short list of five paradoxesto Hui Shi and Deng Xi (fi.2 Many paradoxesthat are included in these lists have been frequentlydiscussed and can be found in any majoroutline of early Chinese thought.3Nevertheless, in spite of their popularity,our understandingof them is complicated by a lack of con- textual information.To begin with, in the three chaptersmentioned above, the para- doxes are presented out of context without much guide to interpretation.Further, while the context of the paradoxesmust have been generally known in the Warring Statesperiod, most of it has not come down to us and had probablydisappeared at an early stage in history.Finally, even when somethingof the context is left, as is the case with bai ma fei ma (a white horse is not a Gongsun Long's l ,%#,% horse), there is no consensus as to its interpretation.Reconstructing the reasoning behind the paradoxes is thereforeproblematic and based mainly on indirectevidence and on our own creativity.4 Given the difficultiesof interpretation,one wonders why these paradoxes have attractedso much attention.Aside from the intellectualappeal of virtuallyany para- dox, two explanations in particularneed to be mentioned. One is that some of the paradoxesconstitute an importantpart of what we know about the ideas of certain thinkers.This is the case not only with, for example, Gongsun Long, but also with Song Xingand Hui Shi, none of whose writingshave survivedindependently. Study- ing the thought of these masters largely involves interpretingthe paradoxes they have left to posterity.Another, perhaps more straightforwardexplanation is that the paradoxes appear in ready-made lists. Being conveniently placed together rather than scatteredthroughout various works, they form an invitingresearch topic: there PhilosophyEast & West Volume 56, Number2 April2006 281-300 281 ? 2006 by Universityof Hawai'iPress Table 1 Group 1A 7 X t Y ("X" +-* "Y") Group 1B X Y t Z ("X"l-"Z") "the greatestskill seems clumsy" "the brightestway seems dark" "the greatestsuccess seems deficient" "the most solid virtueseems weak" is no need for the preparatorystage of searching for paradoxes in a multitudeof texts. Though this has resulted in intense scrutinyof the well-known paradoxes, it has also prevented many scholars from going beyond them. In this sense, the ready-madelists also constitutea barrierto furtherresearch into paradoxes. There is no reason to suppose that the numberof ancient Chinese paradoxes is limited to the statementsfound in the ready-madelists. Scrutinizingthe early philo- sophical writings,one readily discovers that quite a few paradoxes appear outside these lists. In contrastto their more famous counterparts,these paradoxesare often found embedded in their originalcontexts. While this contextual informationopens the way to a better-foundedinterpretation, up to now the paradoxes have been marginalizedand treated in an unsystematicway that does not take into account the immediatecontexts in which the paradoxesare uttered.As a result,these para- doxes constitutea relativelynew field of study. The present article makes a firstat- tempt in exploringthis field of neglected paradoxes. ThreeGroups of Paradoxes The paradoxes introduced in this article generally consist of four characters.Al- though they frequentlyappear in series, they are unlike the paradoxes in the ready- made lists in that they are scatteredthroughout the literatureand are writtendown not by philosophical rivalsbut by people who employ them in an affirmativeway. Some of the more familiarparadoxes are -kr5jt (the greatestskill seems clumsy), (the highest virtue is not virtuous),and (the speechless teaching). OnjW7KT~, the basis of semantic criteria,it is possible to distinguish`?--_ three main groups. In addition, each group can furtherbe divided into two subgroups.5The paradoxical or counterintuitivenature of the paradoxesresults from a challenge to the semantic relationsthat hold between their centralterms. As can be seen fromtable 1, paradoxesthat belong to the firstgroup are charac- terized by the semantic relation of antonymy.6According to our conventional se- mantic associations, qiao r5 (skill)is antonymouswith zhuo tdf(clumsy), and ming HA(bright) is antonymous with mei H (dark, dull). The subgroup to which these paradoxesbelong is determinedby the position of their antonyms.The antonyms in subgroup 1A come in the second and fourthposition, while those in subgroup 1B appear in positions one and four. The paradoxicaleffect of the expressionsderives 282 PhilosophyEast & West Table 2 Group 2A 7k X T X ("X" = "X") Group 2B T X ? X ("X".= X") "the greatestbenevolence is not benevolent" "the shapeless shape" "the highestvirtue is not virtuous" "the knowledgethat does not know" Table 3 - - Group 3A 7k X T- Y ("X" "Y") Group 3B 7T\X Z Y ("Y" "X") "the greatestcarving does not cut" "the speechless teaching" "the greatesthero does not fight" "the speechless disputation" mainly from the fact that the verb ruo (to be like, to seem) suggests that the ant- - onyms are similar,though not identical, in meaning. Paradoxesthat belong to the second group are typifiedby identity(table 2). The graphic identity of the central terms leads to the assumptionof semantic identity. Differencesin structurejustify further division into two subgroups.Paradoxes of sub- group2A are independentstatements, while those of subgroup2B generallyfunction as the object of a precedingverb. In both subgroups,the identityof the centralterms is denied by a negation.7This resultsin paradoxicalsayings. Paradoxesthat belong to the thirdgroup are characterizedby implication(table 3). The termzhi $1J(carving) conventionally implies ge 9J (to cut), and jiao t (teach- ` ing) is commonly thoughtof as implyingyan (to speak). With regardto the para- doxes (the greatest carving does not cut) and (the speechless 7k•->iJ T-ZOf disputation),the relationof implicationis furtherhighlighted by the common graphic element of the central terms. The division into subgroupsis the same as with para- doxes of the second group. The paradoxicaleffect of the expressions resultsfrom negatingthe implication. Though the paradoxescan be assigned to differentgroups and subgroups,they constitutea well-definedand interrelatedset of expressions.The series in which they typically appear do not include other kinds of paradoxes,suggesting that they form a closed unit. As to their internalstructure, they are related in two ways. First,para- doxes that belong to differentgroups or subgroups sometimes appear in a single series. Laozi PT 41, for example, contains no less than twelve paradoxesthat be- long to two main groups and three differentsubgroups (1A, 1B, and 3A).8 Second, paradoxesfrom one group may be rewrittenas paradoxesfrom anothergroup. This Wim De Reu 283 is evident from Zhuangzi 2/5/26-6/3, which first lists five paradoxes, among them (the does not and (the ~~i greatestway designate) CMT- greatestdisputation is and