摘要
王路把“必然地得出”视作逻辑的内在机制或逻辑的观念,认为对句法和语义的区别与对应的认识是亚里士多德建立逻辑学科的关键,但他没有进一步追问亚里士多德何以能够提出这种方法来研究三段论的形式以达到对“必然地得出”的刻画与说明。明确的句子观念是亚里士多德之所以能够提出上述研究方法的一个重要前提,中国古代没有研究过句子的特点、构成与类型,没有形成明确的句子观念,因此不可能走上从句法和语义的区别与对应来研究推理形式的道路。就此而言,根据王路对逻辑观念的理解,中国古代无逻辑。在中国古代何以没有逻辑的问题上,相较于王路所说的古代汉语没有“是”作为系词,中国古代没有形成明确的句子观念可能是更为根本的原因。
Professor Lu Wang takes “following necessarily” as the intrinsic mechanism of logic or the notion of logic, and argues that to know the difference and correspondence between syntax and semantics is a key factor in the foundation of the discipline of logic, but he fails to inquire into how Aristotle can develop such a method by which the notion of “following necessarily” can be explicated in terms of the form of reasoning. In fact, the explicit notion of sentence constitutes a prerequisite for Aristotle’s developing the method of studying the form of reasoning from the angle of the difference and correspondence between syntax and semantics. Research shows that there is no study of the characteristics, components and types of sentence in ancient China, which means the ancient Chinese are unable to develop the explicit notion of sentence, and accordingly, the same method as that by which Aristotle puts forward his theory of syllogism. In this regard, according to professor Lu Wang’s elucidation of the notion of logic or “following necessarily”, there is no logic in ancient China. Compared to the fact emphasized by Lu Wang that the word Shi does not function as the copula in ancient Chinese, the lack of the explicit notion of sentence may better explain why there is no logic in ancient China.
出处
《哲学分析》
CSSCI
2022年第5期3-20,196,共19页
Philosophical Analysis
