Gongsun Long (simplified Chinese: 公孙龙; traditional Chinese: 公孫龍; pinyin: Gōngsūn Lóng; Wade–Giles: Kung-sun Lung, ca. 325–250 BC[1][2]) was a member of the School of Names (名家; Míng jiā; Ming-chia; ming=names) of ancient Chinese philosophy. He also ran a school and enjoyed the support of rulers, and supported peaceful means of resolving disputes in contrast to the wars which were common in the period (the so-called Warring States Period). However, little is known about the particulars of his life, and furthermore many of his writings have been lost.[3] All of his essays, fourteen originally but only six extant, are included in the book Gongsun Longzi (公孫龍子).
In Book 17 of the Zhuangzi anthology Gongsun thus speaks of himself:
"When young, I studied the way of the former kings. When I grew up, I understood the practice of kindness and duty. I united the same and different, separated hard from white, made so the not-so and admissible the inadmissible. I confounded the wits of the hundred schools and exhausted the eloquence of countless speakers. I took myself to have reached the ultimate".
He is best known for a series of paradoxes in the tradition of Hui Shi, including "White horses are not horses," "When no thing is not the pointed-out, to point out is not to point out," and "There is no 1 in 2."
Contents |
In the White Horse Dialogue (白馬論, Báimǎ Lùn), one interlocutor (sometimes called the "sophist") defends the truth of the statement "White horses are not horses," while the other interlocutor (sometimes called the "objector") disputes the truth of this statement. The argument plays upon an ambiguity in Chinese (which happens to also exist in English). The expression "X is not Y" (X非Y) can mean either
"Whales are not fish" and "You are not a philosopher" are examples of the former use of "is not." An example of the second use of "is not" is "Jimmy Olsen is not Superman." Normally, in Chinese and English, it is clear from context which sense is intended, so we do not notice the ambiguity. So the sentence "White horses are not horses" would normally be taken to assert the obviously false claim that white horses are not part of the group of horses. However, the "sophist" in the White Horse Dialogue defends the statement under the interpretation, "White horses are not identical with horses." The latter statement is actually true, since (as the "sophist" in the dialogue explains) "horses" includes horses that are white, yellow, brown, etc., while "white horses" includes only white horses, and excludes the others.
This work has been viewed by some as a serious logical discourse, by others as a facetious work of sophistry, and finally by some as a combination of the two.[4]