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:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-008-019-0015-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2019/V14/I2/248
[1] FAN Dongping, ZHENG Ben. Diachronic Emergence and Its Characteristics from the Viewpoint of Complexity Science[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 653-674.
[2] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[3] Heath Williams. Analytic Phenomenology (or “What It Is Like”) vs. Husserlian Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 427-450.
[4] HU Xinkai. Complete Virtue and the Definition of Happiness in Aristotle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 293-314.
[5] Thierry Lucas. The Logical Style of Confucius’ Analects [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 167-197.
[6] JIA Lumeng, HUNG Ching. From Assessment to Design: What Is Really Needed in Technology Accompaniment to Achieve Subject Constitution?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 73-92.
[7] NI Peimin. How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 29-35.
[8] XU Difei. Hintikka’s Logical Revolution[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 630-648.
[9] HUANG Zhipeng. Encounter between Soul and Human Nature: An Examination of Xia Dachang’s “Xingshuo”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 264-283.
[10] Daniel Canaris. The Tianzhu Shilu Revisited: China’s First Window into Western Scholasticism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 201-225.
[11] 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.
[12] Rina Marie Camus. “Athl-Ethics”: Virtue Training in Mencius and Aristotle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 152-170.
[13] 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.
[14] CHEN Bo. A Look Back at the Development of Logic in China since 1978[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 662-682.
[15] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed