Studies On Philosophy Of The School Of Names In Pre-qin Period

The School of Names is an important philosophy branches in pre- Qin's " contention of a hundred schools of thought ".In Han dynasty, Si Matan divided the Hundred Schools of Thought into six main branches in his book Lun Liu Jia Yao Zhi, first using the title "the School of Names", which referred in particular to some dialecticians who were good at name. Later, Ban Gu, in his book Yi Wen Zi, followed Liu Xiang and Liu Xin's classification and divided pre-qin's The Hundred Schools of Thought into ten main branches, with the School of Names included. Since the philosophy of the School of Names was too difficult to understand for their logic, which was breaking away from traditional pragmatism tide, and was considered weird and odd words. Therefore, it died gradually for not being allowed by society and mainstream thought.Since the Opium Wars, with the pace of "Western Learning", and in the background of the conflict about "substance and function" between Chinese and Western philosophers, the School of Names once again attracted people's attention, bringing about the opportunity of recovery. However, behind the seemingly prosperity, there were several problems in the study of the School of Names. First, the study was mainly focused on logic in a century, and the study on philosophical thought was not enough. Second, as it had been ignored for a long time, the study on the School of Names philosophy was just concentrated on the individual study of Hui Shi and Gongsun Long, etc. Therefore, the school of Names, as one of the important philosophy schools in pre-qin period, hasn't been studied deeper as a whole. Third, there hadn't been a consensus among scholars on some unexplained questions, such as, the school belonging of the School of Names philosophers, the real or fake of their works, the development of the School of Names and the classification of their internal factions, all of which have seriously hampered the deeper study on Names. Based on these points, the author believed that there's a great value and large space on the study of the School of Names. The purpose of the present paper was to survey Names philosophy as a whole part. According to the social and cultural background, we analyzed the origin and development of the School of Names; by a deep analysis on the four representative scholars of Names, we revealed its development progress; the comparison between the School of Names and other schools in pre-qin period highlighted its theory characteristics; by the analysis of philosophy problems included in Names thought, we summaried the value and status of the School of Names. The main content of the present paper is as follows.In the first chapter, we analyzed the origin and development of the School of Names by putting it into the development tendency of "Dialectic of Names" in pre-qin, with social and cultural background in consideration. Under the social and political condition that both ceremony and propriety falled,and the disorder between names and actualities,and in the cultural background of "contention of a hundred schools of thought", "Dialectic of Names" which was centered by the relationship between names and actualities was formed in pre-qin period. The School of Names came into being just under these background. From Deng Xi to Hui Shi, Yin Wen, and to Gongsun Long at last, the School of Names has underwent three stages, namely, creation, development and maturity. Scholars of the School of Names assimilated and integrated the Names thought of other schools, and probed into the separated relationship between names and actualities.According to the Formal Concept Analysis of rationality, they established metaphysical existence status of "Names" and built an abstract concept of "Names".In the second chapter, we explained respectively the thought of Deng Xi, Hui Shi, Yin Wen and Gongsun Long, showing their specific thought characteristics and the development of the School of Names philosophy. Deng Xi's study of "forms and names" and "dialectics" started language concept analysis and dialectical thinking of "Names"; Hui Shi shifted the research focus from "laws and crafts of governmenf" to "study objective things", from his concern on political reality to pure theory thinking; Yin Wen's "forms and names" followed Hui Shi's ideas,turning from "politic rectification"to "dialectics"; Gongsun Long, on the side of conceptualism,constructed the philosophy system by pure rationality, becoming the most famous philosopher in the School of Names.In the third chapter,from the aspect of comparison,,we analyzed the similarities and differences of philosophy between the school of Names and other mainstreams, such as Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, and Legalism. The confuianism,on the one hand, believed the "rectification" was well-founded and reasonable;on the other hand, criticized that they "do not care about politics". So, all-round differences between these two schools were revealed from throey, content, principle as well as method from the thought of "rectification". The debate between Hui Shi and Zhuang Zi reflected the relationship of philosophical thinking between the School of Names and Taoism. On the one hand, Zhuang Zi considered Hui Shi's thought as "nature," showing they had certain things in common; on the other hand, Zhuang Zi strongly criticized Hui Shi's thought, revealing that the School of Names and Taoism had a great divergence on matters like Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Life Philosophy. The differences between the School of Names and Mohism of later period were mainly concentrated on three aspects:first, from the aspect of ontology, The School of Names believed that "name" existed independently, while Mohism of later period believed that "name" was dependent on "actualities"; second, on concept independence issue, The School of Names standed for "separation", while Mohism standed for "integration"; third, as for the relationship between concepts, The School of Names emphasized "difference" and "invariant", while Mohism of later period emphasized "similarities" and "change". During the early period, "law and crafts of government" of the School of Names had some effect on the formation of Legalism, but the "forms and names" was pure academic and pure logic, and "law and crafts of government" of Legalism was pure political and practical. These were the basic differences between the School of Names and Legalism.In the fourth chapter, we considered the four representative scholars of the School of Names as a whole part and examined the School of Names philosophy on ontology, epistemology, methodology and language philosophy. The school of Names insisted on binary ontology that "names" and "actualities" coexisted. Through the comprehensive analysis of sense experience and rationality, they built an Epistemology which was a subject-object dualism. They insisted on the composite methodology which combined "observation" and "debate", used both dialectical thinking and abstract conception analysis of "dialectics", and constructed a relatively complete philosophy system.In this process, scholars' self-awareness of language problems has touched some issues of language philosophy.In the fifth chapter, we summarized the theoretical characteristics and value of the School of Names philosophy, studied its historical status and influence, analyzed reasons of its disappearance and explained the modern significance. The school of Names was on the side of scepticism which was against common sense, and they pursued external transcendental rationality which was non-ethical and non-practical; they valued "wisdom"and sought "truth"; they paid much attention to the application of abstract analysis and rationality, thus, they opened up a non-mainstream philosophy in the history of Chinese philosophy. However, as a result of too much emphasis on abstract rationality, arcane philosophy itself as well as a lack of practicality, the School of Names was incompatible with mainstream philosophy. Under the rulers' cultural oppressions, the School of Names philosophy has lost the free cultural environment. Finally, it died. The conclusion stated the significance of contemporary study on the School of Names. For one thing, it helps us to explore traditional cultural heritage and clear our mind on the development of Chinese philosophy; for another, it has great significance not only for the construction of Chinese philosophy academic system but also for the communication between Chinese and western philosophy.