Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 541–578 | Cite as

Refutational Strategies in Mencius’s Argumentative Discourse on Human Nature

  • Lin-qiong YanEmail author
  • Ming‑hui Xiong 
Article

Abstract

Mencius, a prominent Confucian philosopher in the Warring States period (c. 453 BC–221 BC) of ancient China, is well-known for his argumentative skills, including his refutational skills used to maintain his own standpoints. This paper attempts to reveal how Mencius refuted his opponents argumentatively and strategically on the issue of human nature. To this end, the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation is adopted to first reconstruct Mencius’s argumentative discourse on human nature according to the four stages in critical discussion—the confrontation, opening, argumentation and concluding stages. Under the ancient Chinese historical and cultural context, Mencius’s argumentative discourse about human nature was developed in three critical discussions, between Mencius the protagonist, and his explicit interlocutors and implicit adversaries who held different views on human nature—the antagonists. The discussions were undertaken around three single mixed differences of opinion concerning three propositions, with resolution of the first difference of opinion serving as a starting point of the second, and the resolution of the second as a starting point of the third. Then based on the reconstruction, the paper elaborates the refutational strategies that Mencius employed in various stages, such as dissociation, reductio ad absurdum based on refutational analogy, and conciliation. It further points out that the employment of these strategies is strategic maneuvering undertaken by Mencius in an attempt to realize both dialectical and rhetorical aims.

Keywords

Mencius Argumentation Human nature Dissociation Reductio ad absurdum Refutational analogy Conciliation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study is supported by International Program for PhD Candidates of Sun Yat-sen University, and funded by Jiangsu Province Projects for Philosophy and Social Sciences in Higher Educational Institutions (Grant No. 2017SJB1076), Argumentation Studies in Ancient China (Grant No. 17GZGX23), and China National Social Sciences Foundation Project (Grant No. 19AZX017). Sincere thanks are also given to anonymous reviewers and especially to A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, without whose meticulous and constructive comments and suggestions, this paper can never have been improved for publication.

References

  1. Barnes, J. 1984. The complete works of Aristotle. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chan, A.K.L. 2002. Mencius: Contexts and interpretations. Hawaii: University of Hawaii’s Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chen, H (陈洪杏). 2013. Rethinking about “Argumentation between Mencius and Gaozi”: Arguments on Mencius’s logic from the linguistic perspective (“孟告之辩”再读解——辅以语言学角度论证孟子逻辑的一以贯之). Philosophical Trends (《哲学动态》) 8: 59–65.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, L (陈来). 2018. Interpretation of Book King Hui of Liang (《梁惠王篇》). In Chen Lai & Wang Zhimin eds. (陈来、王志民主编) Interpretations of the Seven Books of Mencius (《孟子》七篇解读). Shandong: Qilu Publishing House (山东:齐鲁书社).Google Scholar
  5. Cherry, K. 2018. The age-old debate of nature vs. nurture. Reviewed by Steven Gans, MD. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-nature-versus-nurture-2795392. Updated November 21, 2018.
  6. de Waard, J., and Eugene A. Nida. 1986. From one language to another: Functional equivalence in Bible translating. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
  7. Garssen, B. 2009. Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In Pondering on problems of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 133–140. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham, A.C. 1976. The background of the Mencian theory of human nature. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 6 (3): 215–274.Google Scholar
  9. Han, Z (韩振华). 2014. Are Mencius’s arguments logical? A survey from the perspective of western sinology (孟子是个讲“逻辑”的人吗?——基于对西方汉学视角的考察). Fudan Journal (Social Sciences) (《复旦学报 (社会科学版)》1: 65–75.Google Scholar
  10. Hwang, P.H. 1979. What is Mencius’ theory of human nature? Philosophy East and West 29 (2): 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansen, H. 2007. Refuting a standpoint by appealing to its outcomes: Reductio ad Absurdum vs. argument from consequences. Informal Logic 27(3): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kong, D (孔德立). Interpretation of Book Gaozi (《告子篇》). In Chen Lai (陈来) and Wang Zhimin (王志民) Eds. Interpretations of the Seven Books of Mencius (《孟子》七篇解读). Jinan: Qilu Publishing House (济南:齐鲁书社), 2018.Google Scholar
  13. Lau, D.C. 1953. Theories of human nature in Mencius and Shyuntzyy. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 15: 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Legge, J. 1875. The life and works of Mencius. London, Philadelphia: Trübner & Co., J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  15. Mencius. 2004. Mencius (trans: by D. C. Lau). London: Penguin Books Ltd. First published in 1970.Google Scholar
  16. Mencius. 2009. Mencius (trans: Irene Bloom). Edited and with an introduction by Philip J. Ivanhoe. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mencius (孟轲). 2010. The works of Mencius (Chinese–English version) (《孟子》(汉英对照)) (trans. James Legge). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (北京:外语教学与研究出版社).Google Scholar
  18. Mencius (孟轲). 2015. Mencius. Translated and with commentary by David Hinton. Berkeley: Counterpoint.Google Scholar
  19. Sun, Z (孙中原). 1999. An effective tool in ancient contention of a hundred schools of thought: On the law of contradiction and ad absurdum analogy in the Mohist School (古代百家争鸣的一种有效工具—论墨家的矛盾律与归谬类比). Chinese Culture Research (《中国文化研究》) 24(2): 34–38.Google Scholar
  20. Sun, Z (孙中原). 2005. The application, summary and influence of Mozi’s reduction to absurdity (墨子归谬法的运用、总结和影响). Journal of Pingdingshan University (《平顶山学院学报》) 20(6): 65–68.Google Scholar
  21. Sun, Z (孙中原). 2012. Solutions to several problems in China logic research (中国逻辑研究中的几个问题求解). Journal of Bijie University (《毕节学院学报》) 30(2): 30–35.Google Scholar
  22. Sun, Z (孙中原). 2015. Dialectic, reductio ad absurdum, and logic: On the Mohist ad absurd reasoning (辩论术、归谬法与逻辑学—论墨家的归谬推理). http://www.cssn.cn/zhx/zx_ljx/201507/t20150702_2063512.shtml (中国社会科学网). Accessed 2 July 2015.
  23. van Eemeren, F.H. (ed.). 2009. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  24. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussion. Dordrecht-Holland/Cinnaminson-U.S.A.: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systemic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F.H., and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2017. Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation, 2nd ed. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. van Rees, A. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xie, Y. 2019. Argument by analogy in ancient China. Argumentation. published online by Springer on 01 January 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-09475-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xiong, M., and Yan, L. 2018. Mencius’s strategies of political argumentation. Argumentation. Published online by Springer on 19 June 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9463-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xu, K (徐克谦). 2011. A detailed discussion on the meaning of Chapter No. 8.26 in the work Mencius (《孟子》 “天下之言性也” 章探微). Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science) (《南京师大学报 (社会科学版)》 (2): 118–123.Google Scholar
  34. Xu, K (徐克谦). 2015. Ren Xing: Mencian’s understanding of human being and human becoming. Dialogue and Universalism 25(2): 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang, B (杨伯峻). 2017. Translation and annotation of Mencius (《孟子译注》). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company (北京:中华书局).Google Scholar
  36. Yang, Z (杨泽波). 2010. Natural inclination of growing in human nature: Supplements on the interpretation of the goodness of human nature (论人性中的自然生长倾向——关于性善论诠释的一个补充性说明). History of Chinese Philosophy (《中国哲学史》) 1: 32–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and Cognition, Department of PhilosophySun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Foreign LanguagesJiangsu UniversityZhenjiangPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Institute of Reasoning, Argumentation and CommunicationSouthwestern University of Finance and EconomicsChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations