When a white horse is not a horse

When a white horse is not a horse (zh-cpwl|c=白馬非馬|p="Báimǎ fēi mǎ"|w="Pai-ma fei ma"|l=white horse not horse), also known as the White Horse Dialogue (zh-cpwl|c=白馬論|p="Báimǎ Lùn"|w="Pai-ma Lun"|l=white horse discourse), is a famous paradox in Chinese philosophy. Gongsun Long wrote this circa 300 BCE dialectic analysis of the question "Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?".

The original text

The White Horse Dialogue ("Baima Lun") constitutes chapter 2 of the eponymous "Gongsun Longzi" "Master Gongsun Long", who was a leader in the "School of Names" (aka "Logicians" or "Dialecticians") in the Hundred Schools of Thought. Most of Gongsun's writings have been lost and the received "Gongsun Longzi" text only contains 6 of the supposedly 14 original chapters. Parts of the text are dislocated and some commentators and translators rearrange them to increase understandability.

The dialogue is between two unnamed speakers.

Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?

Advocate: It can.

Objector: How?

Advocate: "Horse" is that by means of which one names the shape. "White" is that by means of which one names the color. What names the color is not what names the shape. Hence, I say that a white horse is not a horse.

Objector: If there are white horses, one cannot say that there are no horses. If one cannot say that there are no horses, doesn't that mean that there are horses? For there to be white horses is for there to be horses. How could it be that the white ones are not horses?

Advocate: If one wants a horse, that extends to a yellow or black horse. But if one wants a white horse, that does not extend to a yellow or black horse. Suppose that a white horse were a horse. Then what one wants [in the two cases] would be the same. If what one wants were the same, then a white [horse] would not differ from a horse. If what one wants does not differ, then how is it that a yellow or black horse is sometimes acceptable and sometimes unacceptable? It is clear that acceptable and unacceptable are mutually contrary. Hence, yellow and black horses are the same [in that, if there are yellow or black horses] , one can respond that there are horses, but one cannot respond that there are white horses. Thus, it is evident that a white horse is not a horse. … (tr. Van Norden 2005:364-5)

This dialogue continues with deliberations over colored and colorless horses and whether "white" and "horse" can be separated from "white horse".

Other "Gongsun longzi" chapters discuss "Baima"-related concepts of "jian" "hard; hardness" and "bai" "white; whiteness", "ming" "name; term" and "shi" "solid; true, actual; fact, reality", and abstract "zhi" "finger; pointing; designation; universal" like "whiteness" and concrete "wu" "thing; object; particular" like a "white horse".

=Difficulties of interpretation=

The syntax, semantics, and logic of the White Horse Dialogue are ambiguous in the Classical Chinese original and thorny in English translation.

Chinese "Baima fei ma" 白馬非馬 syntactically hinges upon the negative "fei" "not, is not; no, negative; oppose; wrong". The Classical construction "A "fei" B" "A非B" can ambiguously mean either "A is not a member of the class B" or "A is not identical to B". Interpreting this equivocation fallacy, A.C. Graham says this "white horse" vs. "horse" paradox plays upon the ambiguity of whether "is" means:
# "Is a member of the class entitled (x)"
# "Is identical to concept (x)"For example, the celebrated "Happiness of Fish" dialogue in "Zhuangzi" (17, tr. Watson 1968:188-9) contrasts both meanings. Huizi says "You're not a fish [子非魚] — how do you know what fish enjoy?" and Zhuangzi replies "You're not I [子非我] , so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"

Beyond the inherent semantic ambiguities of "Baima fei ma", the first line obscurely asks "ke hu" "Can it be that …?". This dialogue could be an attempted proof that a white horse is not a horse, or a question if such a statement is possible, or both. Van Norden suggests "that the issue is not whether it is always "true" that 'a white horse is not a horse,' but whether it is "possible" for it to be true."

When Derk Bodde translated Feng Youlan's history of Chinese philosophy (1952), he noted the difficulties of construing the White Horse paradox in English.

Strictly speaking, names or terms are divided into those that are abstract and those that are concrete. The abstract term denotes the universal, the concrete term the particular. The particular is the denotation, and the universal the connotation, of the term. In western inflected languages there is no difficulty in distinguishing between the particular ('white' or 'horse') and the abstract ('whiteness' or 'horseness'). In Chinese, however, owing to the fact that the written characters are ideographic and pictorial and lack all inflection, there is no possible way, as far as the form of individual words is concerned, of distinguishing between abstract and concrete terms. Thus in Chinese the word designating a particular horse and that designating the universal, 'horseness,' are written and pronounced in the same way. Similarly with other terms, so that such words as 'horse' and 'white', being used to designate both the concrete particular and the abstract universal, thus hold two values. (1952:206)

Despite these interpretative difficulties with the White Horse Dialogue, many philosophers and sinologists have analyzed it. For instance, see Hansen (1976, 1983:140-); Graham (1989:75-95), (1990:125-216); Thompson (1995); Harbsmeier (1998:298-321); and Van Norden (2005:363-367).

Philosophical significance

Even after two millennia, the White Horse Dialogue is important for both Chinese and Western philosophy.

On the Asian philosophical side, the "Baima Lun"'s significance is evident from how many Chinese classic texts directly or indirectly discuss it. The "Liezi" (chapter 4, tr. Graham 1990:88), which lists and criticizes the paradoxes of Gongsun Long as "perversions of reason and sense", explains "'A white horse is not a horse', because the name diverges from the shape." Two "Zhuangzi" chapters (17 and 33) mock Gongsun Long, and another (2) combines his "zhi" 指 "attribute" and "ma" 馬 "horse" notions in the same context.

To use an attribute to show that attributes are not attributes is not as good as using a nonattribute to show that attributes are not attributes. To use a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse, Heaven and earth are one attribute; the ten thousand things are one horse. (tr. Burton Watson, 1964:35)

The "Mengzi" (6A) uses "bai" 白 "white" to mean both "white-haired; old (person)" and "white-colored (horse)".

Mencius said, 'There is no difference between our pronouncing a white horse to be white and our pronouncing a white man to be white. But is there no difference between the regard with which we acknowledge the age of an old horse and that with which we acknowledge the age of an old man? And what is it which is called righteousness? The fact of a man's being old? Or the fact of our giving honour to his age?' (tr. James Legge)

Other early "A white horse is not a horse" references are found in the "Hanfeizi" (32), "Mozi" (11B), and "Zhanguoce" (4).

On the European philosophical side, whether "a white horse is not a horse" entails diverse philosophical concepts including Platonic idealism, Substance theory, logical intension or comprehension versus extension or denotation, and the Primary/secondary quality distinction in epistemology.

George Pólya's falsidical "All horses are the same color" paradox sounds similar but is different from the ancient White Horse Dialogue.

References

*Fung Yu-lan. 1952. "A History of Chinese Philosophy", Derk Bodde, tr. 2 vols. Princeton University Press.
*Graham, Angus C. 1989. "Disputers of the Tao". Open Court Press.
*Graham, Angus C. 1990. " [http://books.google.com/books?id=TD43k809CT8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Studies+in+Chinese+Philosophy+and+Philosophical+Literature&sig=PogYCdls6sQWtsqeaLVyBp1_ni4#PPP7,M1 Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature] . State University of New York Press.
*Hansen, Chad. 1976. "Mass Nouns and 'A White Horse Is Not a Horse'", "Philosophy East and West", 26.2:189-209.
*Hansen, Chad. 1983. "Language and Logic in Ancient China". University of Michigan Press.
*Harbsmeier, Christoph. 1998. "Language and Logic in Traditional China". Volume 7, Part I of Joseph Needham, "Science and Civilisation in China". Cambridge University Press.
*Thompson, Kirill Ole. 1995. "When a 'White Horse' Is Not a 'Horse'", "Philosophy East and West" 45.4:481-499.
*Van Norden, Bryan W. 2005. " [http://books.google.com/books?id=5PL9hSUiVEoC&pg=PA363&dq=%22on+the+white+horse%22&sig=VmUVfqUERL-CBDhHQuUCm0UoSRQ On the White Horse] ," in "Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy", Ivanhoe, P. J. and Van Norden, Bryan W., eds., 363-367, Hackett.

External links

* [http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Reader/whitehorse.html The White Horse Dialogue] , Bryan W. Van Norden
* [http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=11566&if=en 白馬論] , Text of The White Horse Dialogue (in Chinese), Chinese Text Project