Twenty-One Propositions Explored by Famous Scholars

Gongsun Long (ca. 320–250 BC)

The introduction to the famous scholars can refer to Chapter 2, Section 6 of “Concise History of Chinese Philosophy.”
In “Zhuangzi · Miscellaneous Chapters · All Under Heaven,” Zhuang Zhou discussed twenty-one propositions of the famous scholars of that time. These propositions seem to violate common sense in daily life, but if one attempts to understand them using dialectical thinking, one can appreciate the naive dialectical ideas of the scholars. Below are speculative explanations of these twenty-one propositions.

The following are speculations on the dialectical viewpoints of the famous scholars, for reference.

(1) Eggs have hair. This means that oviparous animals can grow hair after birth (like chicks), indicating that the factors for hair growth are already contained within the egg when the animal is still inside.

(2) The three-legged chicken. A chicken has only two legs, but the concept of “chicken legs” is not identical to the physical chicken legs; the two physical legs plus the spiritual concept of “chicken legs” together form three legs.

(3) Ying has the world. “Ying” was the capital of the Chu state at that time. The world, i.e., the universe, is infinitely large; Ying is just a part of the world. The relationship between part and whole is interdependent and transformative. Although Ying is a limited part, without it, the world would be incomplete. Therefore, Ying contains elements of the infinite world, and it is correct to say that Ying contains the world because it is itself a part of the whole.

(4) Dogs can become sheep. This explores the relationship between concepts and the actual material reflection. People call a sheep “sheep,” but if the name “sheep” is assigned to a dog (e.g., naming a dog “sheep”), then although the dog remains a dog physically, the reflected concept is not “dog” but “sheep.” Thus, the first refers to the material dog, and the second refers to the conceptual sheep, illustrating that concepts reflect material reality and that the content of concepts can change.

(5) Horses have eggs. The scholars, based on naive dialectics, astutely guessed that all living beings share a common ancestor. Since horses are viviparous animals, like oviparous animals, they are of the same nature and can transform into each other. Therefore, viviparity and oviparity can mutually transform, and in a certain sense, horses can be said to be oviparous. Perhaps they observed horse embryos and inferred the relationship between viviparity and oviparity. Scientifically, this is partly correct because viviparity develops from oviparity, inheriting positive factors from eggs (such as embryos and membranes).

(6) Toads have tails. Toads are considered to have evolved from tailed tadpoles, so internally, toads must contain factors that initially gave them tails, and the tadpoles they produce also have tails. Although scholars could not understand genetics at the time, such speculation is dialectical and contains some correct elements.

(7) Fire is not hot. Here, “fire” refers to the concept of fire; physical fire is naturally hot, but the concept of fire is a mental construct that does not possess physical attributes like heat, so it is naturally not hot.

(8) Mountain entrances. This does not refer to the literal mountain pass but is a conclusion made by people. Scholars believe that the passages through mountains are not actual openings in the mountains but are defined for convenience. The mountain itself does not have true openings at the mountain pass; real mountain entrances are volcanic craters, fissures, caves, etc. This also explores the relationship between concept and material.

(9) Wheels do not always touch the ground. Although wheels roll over the ground, at any given point on the wheel, it is not always in contact with the ground. When it does contact, it includes the factors that make it leave the ground; otherwise, the same point would always be in contact, and the wheel could not turn. This criticizes metaphysics that claims wheels are always in contact with the ground and thus do not change, emphasizing the absoluteness of motion.

(10) Eyes cannot see. This means that the eye organ itself does not have the ability to see; in darkness or sleep, people are “blind with eyes.” It shows that it is not the eyes that see but the “spirit” or attention that perceives. Modern science confirms that visual information is processed by the brain; only the brain can interpret these signals. Even blind people with damaged eyes can “see” if their brains process visual information normally. This is a brilliant guess by the scholars.

(11) The pointer does not reach, and the end is not absolute. “Pointer” refers to contact; “end not absolute” means knowledge has no end. It implies that phenomena are not equivalent to the essence of things (e.g., the blind man touching an elephant), and human understanding is infinite (e.g., understanding of material structures). It distinguishes between phenomena and essence, acknowledging the infinite nature of human cognition—a dialectical viewpoint.

(12) Turtles are longer than snakes. Turtles and snakes are different animals; generally, snakes are longer than turtles. But if comparing the largest turtle with the shortest snake, the turtle is longer. Paleontological evidence confirms the existence of ancient giant turtles, which were much longer than snakes. This is one of the scholars’ early brilliant guesses, thousands of years ahead of modern paleontology. It explores the relationship between general and particular, showing that under special conditions, contradictions can shift and transform; turtles can be longer than snakes.

(13) A square cannot be a circle. “Square” refers to a ruler, “circle” to a compass. The idea is that straight and curved are mutually convertible; a ruler cannot produce a perfect square but only an approximation using countless tiny curves, and a compass cannot produce a perfect circle but only an approximation using countless tiny straight lines. In higher mathematics, calculus proves this: differentiation breaks curves into straight segments, and integration constructs curves from straight lines.

(14) A chisel cannot fit into a mortise. “Chisel” refers to the tenon and mortise joint, which can be seen as a hole; “mortise” is the tenon. Generally, people think that when a nail is hammered into a hole, it is surrounded by the hole; but scholars believe that no matter how tight, there will always be gaps between the nail and the hole, so the hole cannot fully enclose the nail. This indicates that the unity (connection) of contradictory sides is relative; the nail can be firmly inserted, but fundamentally, there are differences, and gaps still exist. The nail and hole are not completely one; there is no contradiction but differences and struggle.

(15) The shadow of a flying bird never moves. This means that the shadow cast by a flying bird does not move. Scholars say the shadow is produced by sunlight illuminating the bird; the bird is flying, but the shadow merely reflects the bird and has no ability to move independently. Its movement depends on the bird’s movement, so to the bird, the shadow is naturally stationary. This presents the dialectical idea that objects have both absolute motion and relative stillness.

(16) The speed of an arrow in flight, yet sometimes it does not move or stop. “The speed of an arrow” refers to a flying arrow, which is both moving and stationary. The reason is that without motion, the arrow would not change position in space; without rest, the arrow would lack a space for existence. The change in space itself loses its basis. This opposes Zeno’s metaphysical view, representing dialectical thought.

(17) A dog is not a “dog.” Similar to “dogs can become sheep,” if the concept describing a dog is replaced with another noun, then the dog is no longer “dog.” The first refers to the material dog; the second to the conceptual “dog.”

(18) The yellow horse, Lih cattle, and three. Similar to “three-legged chicken,” the material cattle and horse are two animals, but adding the concept “yellow horse, Lih cattle” makes three.

(19) White dog, black. Also explores the relationship between material and concept; the first is the material white dog, and the second is the conceptual “black.”

(20) A foal without a mother. This discusses change; a foal without a mother exists before it is born, but only after it loses its mother can it be called a “lonely foal.” The condition for being a “lonely foal” is precisely to have no mother! This refutes the metaphysical doctrine of unchangingness, illustrating that properties can change, and different properties imply different things.

(21) A one-foot staff, taken in halves daily, will never run out. This means that a one-foot-long staff, if halved daily, will always be inexhaustible, hinting at the infinite divisibility of matter.

4 Likes

This mainly reflects the ideas of famous scholars as members of the emerging landlord class, opposing the then decayed and declining slave-owning class’s idealism and metaphysics. They advocated for concepts to be true to their content, to align with the essence of the things themselves, and to distinguish concepts from the material itself. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of recognizing the development and change of things, as internal factors within things already contained elements that negate themselves. Under certain conditions, the two aspects of contradictions can transform into each other.

4 Likes

It’s so advanced :open_mouth:

Bai Gou Hei didn’t quite understand, the explanation was a bit brief. What does the “black” in the conceptual sense refer to? Why would a material Bai Gou have a conceptual black?

Equivalent to changing a name, similar to how people can freely name things, changing “white dog” to “black dog,” but objectively the white dog remains a white dog. This also reflects that a renowned scholar points out the relationship between form and content: changing the form does not alter the content itself.

In the paper “A Brief Discussion on the Logic of the Late Zhou Famous Thinkers” published in the 1963, Issue 2 of the Journal of Shandong University, some propositions of the famous thinkers are interpreted differently from the original poster.

Regarding “fire is not hot” (Item 7), the paper believes that the famous thinkers’ view is: only fire itself, without human tactile perception, cannot form the concept of heat. The proposition “eyes do not see” (Item 10) emphasizes another condition necessary for recognition: not only must one have sensory organs to perceive things, but also the things themselves being perceived, recognized, and reflected—eyes alone, without observed objects, cannot produce vision. This proposition reflects the materialist epistemological reflection theory of the famous thinkers.

Regarding “the wheel does not grind the ground” (Item 9), the paper considers that the main emphasis of the famous thinkers on this proposition is the relationship between parts and the whole. Contrasting with “Ying has the world” (Item 3), it focuses on illustrating that parts and the whole cannot be identical— the wheel consists of the hub (the central part of the wheel) and the rim spokes (the rim is a circle around the wheel, and spokes connect the rim and hub). Since only the rim spokes grind the ground, it cannot be said that the wheel as a whole is grinding the ground.

Regarding “the finger does not reach, and the reaching is not complete” (Item 11), the paper believes that “finger” refers to the attribute of a thing (which the “Simple Chinese Philosophy History” also considers), and “reach” refers to the specific physical form or material concept. “Finger does not reach” means that certain attributes are not fixed to a single object, e.g., stones are hard and white, but the attributes of hardness and whiteness are not fixed solely to stones; other objects can also be hard or white. “Reaching is not complete” indicates that various specific forms of matter have birth and death, but the entire material world itself will not cease to exist or perish. This proposition reflects the materialist natural view of the famous thinkers.

Regarding “the chisel does not surround the mortise” (Item 14), the paper suggests that the famous thinkers believe that “chisel” only refers to the hole itself, not including the wood around the hole. When the tenon (the plug) is hammered into the hole, the space is already filled by the tenon, so the chisel no longer exists.

Regarding “dog is not a canine” (Item 17), the paper considers that its reasoning is similar to “a white horse is not a horse.” “Dog” (狗) refers to a young dog that has not yet grown into a full-fledged dog. Therefore, “dog is not a canine” means “a young dog is not a full dog.” This proposition illustrates that individual entities cannot be equated with general concepts, and also shows that things have qualitative differences at different stages of development.

Regarding “white dog, black” (Item 19), the paper believes that the famous thinkers’ view is: whether saying a dog is white or black, it is based on a part of the dog’s color. If based on the dog’s fur color, one can say the dog is white; if based on the dog’s eye color, one can say the dog is black. This proposition seems to have a relativist tendency because it does not determine the nature of the thing based on its main contradiction or main aspect, but rather assigns appropriate labels based on parts.

试谈晚周名家的逻辑_高亨.pdf (2.1 MB)

This paper was also written with reference to other views at the time. I will share my own thoughts. Because the famous thinkers mainly explore the relationship between name and reality, representing a naive materialism and naive dialectics, I tried to follow this direction as much as possible when writing, which is the basic logic I used.
Regarding “fire is not hot,” from the perspective of Gongsun Long’s theory of object-ness, this explanation is more reasonable.
My view on “the eye does not see” is based on Gongsun Long’s words: the famous thinkers want to express that humans need to have vision, not only the objective sensory organ of the eye but also the consciousness that receives visual information. Without consciousness, even animals with eyes that see things cannot understand their significance; they can only act on instinct. Modern scientific evidence shows that what truly perceives visual information is not the eye but the brain, which processes visual data. Consciousness is a special property of the brain, and without the brain’s functions, consciousness cannot arise or develop.
As for “the wheel does not grind the ground,” I think it should also be about motion. Although I initially agreed with the explanation in the article, upon further reflection, if it is just interpreted this way, it becomes too superficial, like a word game (if the wheel is placed flat on the ground, then the entire wheel touches the ground, making the metaphor meaningless). It does not truly reflect the dialectical thought of the famous thinkers. The relationship between parts and whole is more akin to the proposition “the city has the world,” which is more appropriate and dialectical. The reason for using the wheel as an example is likely deliberate, to illustrate the relationship between motion and rest through the movement of the wheel.
Regarding “the finger does not reach, and the reach does not end,” my understanding differs from that of the paper. Here, it discusses the objective material and its attributes, or the subjective perception and recognition process of humans. Ultimately, human subjective recognition is only a reflection of material; both perspectives are essentially the same—one from an objective standpoint, the other from a subjective one. Since “指” (pointing) in the theory of object-ness refers to material attributes, the explanation in the paper is more reasonable.
My understanding of “the chisel does not fit the mortise” is that…
The “dog is not a dog” part was a mistake in the original writing; the correct meaning is as in the paper.

If all the wheels are placed on their sides, it’s no longer rolling, and at this point, not all parts of the wheels are in contact with the ground.

1 Like

What does the “chicken leg” in the mind mean?

I looked at the paper issued by the Red Jacobin, which explains the “three-legged chicken.” It states that experts distinguish between the concepts of the whole and the parts, believing that when counting chicken legs, there is both the concept of the whole chicken leg and the concepts of the chicken’s left leg and right leg. Therefore, from a conceptual standpoint, they say it is three-legged. I think this explanation is more appropriate.

Indeed, understood

The concept of “chicken feet”

In “Mozi · Jingxia” it says: “The scenery does not shift, and the saying is changed.” The “change” refers to “re-creation, reconstruction,” meaning the shadow does not move; the explanation is that the shadow is constantly disappearing and being recreated. Although each time it is recreated, the shadow itself does not actually move, but the infinitely continuous re-creation appears as if it has moved. This also illustrates the relationship between stillness and motion. However, infinite static states constitute continuous motion. It also contains the idea that similar phenomena may have different reasons, one cause with multiple effects.

I feel it needs an explanation of why this indicates they are not fused into one, and what exactly this contradiction is.

The section about the School of Names in the Concise History of Chinese Philosophy mentions “White horse is not horse,” but I still don’t quite understand the explanation of this proposition in the book. Could you please explain it?

2 Likes

You can see this. I have written similar posts before.

2 Likes

In the comparison between “white horse” and “horse,” “white horse” is a concrete object, a horse that is white in color. Whereas “horse” is an abstract concept, representing the common characteristics of all horses. These two illustrate the relationship between the particular and the general, the individual and the universal.

In the booklet “Chairman Mao on the Educational Revolution,” there is a passage that reads:

Actually, children before entering school, from ages 1 to 7, come into contact with many things. At 2 years old, they learn to speak; at 3, they babble and quarrel with others; a little older, they use small tools to dig soil, imitating adult labor. This is observing the world. Children have already learned some concepts. “Dog” is a broad concept. “Black dog” and “yellow dog” are narrower concepts. The yellow dog in their home is the concrete one.

The concept of “person” has already discarded many things, such as the differences between men and women, adults and children, Chinese and foreigners… only the characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals remain. Who has ever seen a “person”? One can only see Zhang San or Li Si. No one can see the concept of “house,” only specific houses, such as Western-style houses in Tianjin or courtyard houses in Beijing.

The sentence “Who has ever seen a ‘person’? One can only see Zhang San, Li Si…” profoundly reflects this principle. What we encounter are all concrete things in reality. Through these sensory materials, general concepts are formed in thought, leading to rational understanding.

5 Likes