Ancient Chinese can be said to be one of the main areas where logic initiated, together with Greek and India. This was during the regime of Mohi who was a follower of Confucius. However, they existed under different doctrines. There was also Mo-tzu who made major contributions in the field of logic and linguistics in China. They introduced Hu Shih as a contribution of logic.
Confucius and Mo-tzu had philosophical contribution to linguistic and logical reflections in their cultural tradition of Chinese. Confucius would rectify names as a move in realizing political and moral reforms. Therefore, Hu Shih referred to the Confucius as taking part in changing the language through exacting meaning as an integral part in logical philosophy. Confucius used judgments and written words like propositions, judiciously to indicate moral judgment (Wright 58).
The Mohists also contributed greatly in Chinese logical field. They provided the Chinese with certain logical procedures as well as methods of improving their logic. These methods would make the people of China discover various methods in dealing with the multiple tasks or duties. Therefore, Mo-tzu is considered to have come up with a particular system of logic, which the only kind was developed during the ancient history relating to Chinese thought. Hu Shih’s translation related to the crispy textual statement could also be explained. On the other hand, Mohist defined inferential logic in a different way. For instance, he explained that one should reason note as well as observe what exactly is happening around and of every change, aimed at finding the relation or order existing between a certain numbers of those judgments. This would make one be able to define the respective subject or title together with the prediction aimed at expressing the exact meaning in a proposition through providing the objective or the principle meaning. For instance, if a particular statement starting with "because“ within a certain premise, as well as support the reason, therefore, the conclusion related through choosing or selecting occurrences on the objectives of agreement should be the difference (Schwartz 32). Therefore, this formulation comprises of the crucial factors of Mohist logic. Luckily, this would be the realization that is that the Mohist method of inference can be compared to the Buddhist inference method (anumana) that got developed in India.
Therefore, Indian logic of occurrence was theorized generally on certain dual main objectives of anvaya and vyatireka. The two terms, vyatireka and anvaya, belonged to the ancient Indian vocabulary related to the science of grammar. Anvaya signified "connection" while vyatireka meant “separation". When philosophical reflection raised, Buddhists began using the terminologies and also the Hindu logicians while referring to the dual methods or procedures of dissimilar and similar instantiations for valid reasoning that had to be logical. As indicated before, the two ways of operations corresponded directly to the Mohist methods or principles of difference and agreement (Shankman and Durrant 23). It could be understood that, irrespective of Chinese or Indian language, the operations are crucial while dealing with mental procedure in the classification of objects that are referential through naming and thus indispensable in the practical usage of particular language.
Classical Chinese had a problem of lack of the grammatical depth, as well as certain complexity of Indo-European languages and the way of communication. It was due to this fact that they had to relate with the Greek. Again, this was due to lack of good alphabets, a situation that also deterred the development of particular algebraic logic in China. It also went hand in hand with the problem of poor Algebra among the Chinese mainly due to their language like Bai Shai. Therefore, some of the Chinese men had to specialize in mathematical, as well as logical paradoxes, following the Greek manner in the ancient time. This was led by philosopher Zeno who was a Greek. The main objective for this was to promote or enhance some ethical agendas in Chinese. To perform these tasks, the experts had to include or employed various ways of rigorous logic, but the Greeks were mainly seeking to reinforce ethical grounds within the then improvised metaphysical perspectives in China.
Some other Greek “Logicians” were also extremely involved, and they were philosophers of language just as the Indians. Their main duty by then was to explore forms that certain languages were introduced and also the relationship that existed between words, as well as the world. However, the work that the Greek men were performing with language would also be dictated by some ethical agendas.
Therefore, the conventional portray of these languages within ancient China formed much bigger or larger stress on the functionality, while undertaken as pragmatic instrument related to regulation of behavior than on the power to portray the world using words. Due to that, certain Greek and Chinese Philosophers of language were mainly interested in changing the use of language so as to provide desirable measures on the way that rhetoric would be misused and misunderstood thus twisting the regulative main function of language.
In conclusion, logicians in the ancient Chinese had a great contribution in linguistics. They introduced grammar in China and contribute to other improvement, for instance in mathematics, from the Greeks and other forms of science. The Chinese had similar logic with the Indians as compared to the Greeks. Mohist period was the main period when all this happened as well as Confucius era.
Works Cited
Schwartz, Benjamin Isadore. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print.
Shankman, Steven and Stephen W. Durrant. Early China/Ancient Greece: Thinking through Comparisons. New York: SUNY Press, 2002. Print.
Wright, David Curtis. The History of China. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
