Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2019, Vol. 14 Issue (2) : 248-263    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-008-019-0015-1
SPECIAL THEME
What the “Failure” of Aristotelian Logic in Seventeenth Century China Teaches Us Today: A Case Study of the Mingli Tan
Thierry Meynard()
Research Center of Guangzhou and Foreign Cultural Exchanges, Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
 Download: PDF(371 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The Mingli Tan is recognized as the first Chinese-language treatise introducing Western logic in China. First published in the final years of the Ming dynasty, the work was presented to Emperor Kangxi in 1683. Despite its sophisticated thought and innovation, the work failed to gain support among intellectuals and court officials. By analyzing the objectives of the Mingli Tan in tandem with its companion work, the Coimbra commentary, this paper explores some of the important philosophical, pedagogical, and historical reasons that can help to explain this failure. Through this historical failure, we can gain some insights about the nature of logic and its current position in China.

Keywords Mingli Tan      Aristotle      logic      Jesuit     
Issue Date: 15 July 2019
 Cite this article:   
Thierry Meynard. What the “Failure” of Aristotelian Logic in Seventeenth Century China Teaches Us Today: A Case Study of the Mingli Tan [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 248-263.
 URL:  
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-008-019-0015-1
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2019/V14/I2/248
[1] Daniel Canaris. The Tianzhu Shilu Revisited: China’s First Window into Western Scholasticism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 201-225.
[2] Yoshimi Orii. The Limits of a Confrontational Approach: Fabian Fukansai’s Critiques of Neo-Confucianism and Christianity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 181-200.
[3] Rina Marie Camus. “Athl-Ethics”: Virtue Training in Mencius and Aristotle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 152-170.
[4] Lisa Raphals 瑞麗. When Virtues, Roles and Duties Fail: Early Greek and Chinese Accounts of Akrasia[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 29-46.
[5] CHEN Bo. A Look Back at the Development of Logic in China since 1978[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 662-682.
[6] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
[7] ZHANG Junguo. A Critical Examination of Anselm’s Ontological Argument[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 137-150.
[8] Mircea Dumitru. On Toleration, Charity, and Epistemic Fallibilism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 671-679.
[9] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[10] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
[11] KE Xiaogang. Reason and Besinnung: Heidegger’s Reflections on Science in Contributions to Philosophy [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 430-443.
[12] López-Astorga Miguel. Logic, Pragmatics, and Types of Conditionals[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 279-297.
[13] Teun Tieleman. The Early Stoics and Aristotelian Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 104-121.
[14] Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
[15] LI Guo. Empirical Propositions and the Change of Language- Games[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 21-34.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed