Text in Big5
Introductory Remarks -- What this section appears to me to be about:
On the Relevance of Differentiae
~(humans
{bandits})
~(being a Bandit --> being Human) 是而不然
B H ~(B
--> H)
1 1 0 paradigmatic case: B=1,
H=0
1 0 1 contrary case: B=1, H=1
0
1 0 "是而不然 " indicates that were the
0 0
0 antecedents and consequents both
instanced then the implication would
be shown false.
Example: It is not the case that if Ma Barker loves her son she therefore may be known to love human beings in general. She just loves her son idiosyncratically.
It is not the case that ( X's
loving a Bandit implies loving Human beings in
general).
B H ~(B -->
H) B --> ~H B --> H
1 1 0 0
1
1 0 1 1 0
0 1 0
1 1
0 0 0 1
1
{{Comparable cases: The customer says: "If the parrot will eat crackers then it will consume all grain products." The pet store owners says: "Not so. You definitely should not feed it grain alchohol and many other grain products." It's not the case that if someone loves his brother he loves all physically attractive men.}}
獲之親，人也，獲事其親，非事人也。 其弟，美人也，愛弟，非愛美人也。 車，木也，乘車，非乘木也。 船，木也，<人>[入]船，非<人>[入]木也。 盜人，人也，多盜，非多人也。 無盜，非無人也。 奚以明之？ 惡多盜，非惡多人也。 推無盜，非推無人也。 世相與共是之。 ※若若是，則雖「盜人人也」， 愛盜人非愛人也， 不愛盜人非不愛人也， 殺盜人非殺人也， 無難<盜無難>矣。(衍三字) 此與彼同類，世有彼而不自非也， 墨者有此而非之，無也故焉， 所謂內膠外閉(與心毋空手內膠)而不解也， 此乃是而不然也。
The
parents of a bondservant are people. For a bondservant to
serve his parents is
not for him to serve people.
A person's younger brother is a beautiful
person. For that person to love
his/her younger brother is not for him/her to
love a beautiful person.
A wagon is [a] wood[en artifact]. To ride a wagon
is not to ride wood.
A boat is [a] wood[en artifact]. To enter a boat is
not to enter wood.
A bandit is a human being. An excess number of bandits
is not an excess number
of human beings: To not have any bandits is not to be
without people.
How are we to get clear on this?
To loathe there being
lots of bandits is not to loathe there being lots of human
beings.
To
desire that there not be any bandits is not to desire that there not be
any
human beings.
Everybody in the world would affirm these propositions.
[However,]
If those propositions are the case, then although [we know
that] a bandit is a
human being, loving a bandit is not loving a human being,
not loving a bandit is
not to not love a human being, and killing a bandit would
not be killing a human
being.
[However, we have already seen above that
loving a bondservant is to love a
human being, and loving a slave is to love a
human being. So what is going on?]
There is no difficulty in this
matter:
The former set of propositions and the latter set of propositions
are of the
same general form. The people of the world accept the former cases
and do not
condemn themselves/hold themselves to be in self-contradiction. The
Mohists hold
the latter propositions, and are opposed, but there is no other
reason for it:
This is what is called "being stuck solid on the inside and being
locked closed
on the outside," and there is no way to free them up. These are
all
[propositions] that are affirmed but which are not the way things really
are.
It makes sense, at least in some contexts, to look at the sub-sets as the units that meaningfully coordinate with the verbs. We eat mushrooms, but (if cautious and wise) do not eat fungi in general (which set includes poisonous toadstools). There is a covert "all" in the sentences offered in this section. Parrots eat some but not all grain products.
Relationships which the author discusses
include:
bondservants love parents, a subset of human beings
bondservants >>> ([parents]human beings)
Elder siblings love younger
siblings, a set some members of which
are part of another set
elder sibs
>>> (younger sibs {beautiful human beings) }
humans >>> {(boats) wooden
artifacts}
humans >>> {(wagon) wooden artifacts}
(bandits == null set)
!= (humans == null set)
Normal people detest bandits.
Normal people
>>> {(bandits) human beings}
But we have already seen that:
"A
bondservant is a human being. To love a bondservant is to
love a human
being.
"A slave is a human being. To love a slave is to love a
human
being."
Therefore, I assume that the opposition to the Mohists must have argued:
To love a bandit is to love a human being.
To not love a
bandit is to not love a human being.
To kill a bandit is to kill a human
being.
Whereas the Mohists argue:
To love a bandit is not to love a
human being.
To not love a bandit is not to fail to love a human
being.
To kill a bandit is not to kill a human being.
Even though they
would also say:
To love a relative is to love a human being.
To not
love a relative is to fail to love a human being.
To kill a relative is to
kill a human being.
I think what the Mohists are looking at is the fact that sometimes the superset is important and relevant to us, and sometimes it is not. In the latter cases, the subset is more relevant and more important. Suppose that Ma Barker loved her son, but she did not love him because he was a human being (and in fact she hated all human being), but she loved him as an exception due to the fact that he was her offspring.
Obviously, we cannot proceed in some kind of formulaic way. We have to understand the meanings of what we are saying. We have to know whether the characteristics that form the differentiae of the subset are pertinent or "accidental" when we make any given statement.
There is a "subjective" element to the instances in this section. Even the example, "Shitake mushrooms are edible," is only true for some organisms. "Honeysuckle berries are edible," but only for birds. "Toadstools are poisonous" is only true for some organisms. Other organisms must succeed in metabolizing toadstools or else we would be buried in dead toadstools.
So we have to realize that when we predicate something of a subject, that predicate may relate specifically to the differentiating characteristics of the subject. Saying "She raises miniature Alsatians," is different from saying "She raises dogs." When we make the first claim we intend to ward off the wider claim that she indiscriminately raises all kinds of dogs. Of course it is true that she raises some kinds of dogs, but it is not true that she raises all kinds of dogs. }}