墨家与亚里士多德谬误论比较研究

谬误论是逻辑学的重要内容。中国古代的墨家和古希腊的亚里士多德 ,分别对谬误论进行了各具特色的研究。其相同点是墨家和亚氏都分析了思维形式方面的谬误、都重视对语言和违反矛盾律所犯逻辑谬误的分析。其不同点是墨家和亚氏对谬误分析的表现形式不同 ,以及其谬误理论的系统化程度不同。墨家逻辑和亚氏逻辑是本质相同而形态不同的两种谬误理论。由于人类思维规律在本质上是一致的 ,因而 ,它们所形成谬误论的本质也是相同的。但又由于它们的谬误论形成的具体条件不同 ,如当时中西方论辩形式不同、逻辑体系不同、语言风格不同 ,谬误论的内容和形式也就不同。它们各具特色 ,在当时都对反驳诡辩、认识真理起了巨大的作用。比较墨家与亚氏的谬误论 ,认识其同异和发生发展规律 ,是中西逻辑史研究的一个重要课题。

A Comparison between Mo - tse's and Aristotle's Fallacy Studies

Fallacy studies are an important component of logic. Mo-tse in the ancient China and Aristotle in the ancient Greece had their own fallacy studies respectively. The similarity is that they have both analyzed the errors in thinking forms and paid great attention to the analysis of logic errors in speech. The differences lie in their different ways of error analysis and different degrees of systematicity in theories. The logic of Mo-tse and that of Aristotle are two kinds of theories with the same nature but different forms. Their theories of fallacy are the same in nature because man has the same rule of thinking, and they are different in content and form because they were formed in different conditions in China and in the west, such as different forms of argument, different logic systems and language styles. They have their own characteristics, but both of them played an important role then in disproving sophistry and understanding the truth. Therefore, it is an important subject in the studies of the Chinese and western logic history to compare the two theories.