The Chinese tradition boasts a profound aptitude for dialectical thinking, with the “Book of Changes” serving as its primordial wellspring. Comprising both the “Classic” and the “Commentary,” the “Book of Changes,” compiled during the early Western Zhou Dynasty, features sixty-four hexagrams formed from the overlapping combinations of eight trigrams. These trigrams, constructed from symbols of opposition, “-“, and “–“, endeavor to encapsulate the myriad phenomena of nature and human society through their juxtaposition. Thus begins the endeavor to comprehend the world through theoretical thought, a commencement inherently imbued with rudimentary dialectical elements.
Within this divinatory text, scientific elements of dialectical thinking intermingle with superstition and myth, akin to jade concealed within raw ore, awaiting the scrutiny and polish necessary to reveal its luster. As social practices and natural sciences burgeoned during the Pre-Qin era, and amidst the fervent debates among the Hundred Schools of Thought, the “Commentary on the Book of Changes,” compiled toward the end of the Warring States period, elucidated the latent dialectical elements within the “Book of Changes,” birthing the rudiments of dialectical logic. This nascent dialectical logic, embodied in the “Commentary,” underwent continuous supplementation, extension, and amplification throughout the subsequent development of Chinese logical thought.
Here, we shall elucidate the dialectical logical principles expounded in the “Commentary,” while also appropriately delving into its intrinsic connection with the historical development of dialectical logic in ancient China.
I. The Debate between “Expression” and “Intention” in the Book of Changes
In the era preceding the Qin Dynasty, debates on logical matters revolved around the dichotomy of “names and realities.” Various philosophers proposed different theories concerning the relationship between names and realities, thereby presenting distinct logical doctrines: Confucius advocated for “correct naming,” Laozi expounded on “namelessness,” and Mozi emphasized “using names to elevate realities.” Rather than delving into these specific logical theories here, our focus lies in highlighting the inherent discussion of the “expression-intention” relationship within the discourse of “names and realities.” The “expression-intention” relationship delves into the question of whether language can accurately convey meaning, particularly whether language and intention can grasp the “Dao” (i.e., the ability of logical thinking to comprehend the fundamental principles of the world and the laws of universal development). This poses a sharp question for philosophers and constitutes the fundamental inquiry of dialectical logic.
Laozi’s assertion, “The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name,” In “Chapter One” of Laozi’s teachings, it is suggested that the concepts of “Dao” and “Name,” when articulated in ordinary language, cease to embody the eternal essence of “Dao” and “Name.” Laozi asserts: “The Dao that can be described is not the eternal Dao.” (Chapter Twenty-Two of Laozi) posits that the “Dao” resides in a realm beyond designation, where words and concepts fall short in grasping its essence. Zhuangzi, on the other hand, sharpens the inquiry into whether “speech” and “meaning” can truly capture the essence of the “Dao.” He articulates: “The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.” (Outer Chapters of Zhuangzi) Here, it is suggested that words, akin to traps and snares, serve merely as tools, and only those who transcend speech can attain true understanding. Zhuangzi emphasizes the inherent contradiction between “speech” and “meaning” in this context. Zhuangzi further emphasizes that the “Dao” cannot be expressed with “words” or grasped with “intent.” For, in his view: Firstly, abstract words cannot grasp concrete things. He says: “Before the concept of Dao was formed, there were no fixed boundaries; before words were established, there was no permanence.” (Zhuangzi, “Discussion on Making All Things Equal”) The Dao is indivisible, yet human concepts and language always abstract, dividing concrete things for comprehension; once divided, limits are imposed, and it ceases to be a whole. Therefore, abstract concepts cannot grasp the concrete Dao. Secondly, concepts are static and cannot express change. Zhuangzi says: “Words are not just like blowing wind; when someone speaks, there is something to be spoken about. However, what is being spoken about is not yet determined.” (ibid.) He believes that words are different from blowing wind; words must have an object to refer to, and one’s understanding is correct only when it corresponds to the object. However, the object is uncertain and constantly changing, so it is impossible to use concepts to express the ever-changing Dao absolutely. Thirdly, finite concepts cannot express the infinite. Zhuangzi states: “Those who can express themselves in words are those who are rough in their understanding of things; those who can convey their thoughts are those who are refined in their understanding of things. What cannot be expressed in words and what cannot be understood through thoughts is beyond the reach of either roughness or refinement.” (Zhuangzi, “Autumn Floods”) He believes that words can express the rough outline of things, and thoughts can reach the subtleties of things, but they are limited to the tangible and finite domain. The essence, being intangible and infinite, eludes capture through language and concepts. Laozi and Zhuangzi, particularly Zhuangzi, expose the contradictions inherent in logical thinking: abstract versus concrete, stillness versus movement, finite versus infinite. From this, they offer a resounding negation to the question of whether logical thinking (words, thoughts) can grasp the laws of universal development. Lenin pointed out that the “dialectical link” contains “from affirmation to negation— from negation to the ‘unity’ of affirmation.” (Philosophical Notebooks, p. 225) While Laozi and Zhuangzi’s exposition on contradictions in logical thinking is evident in the dialectical link “from affirmation to negation,” they do not progress further to the stage of the “unity of affirmation” from negation. It is precisely in the Book of Changes that reaches the stage which Laozi and Zhuangzi did not reach, affirming that “words” and “thoughts” are capable of grasping the “Dao.”
The Book of Changes points out: “Confucius said: ‘The Book does not exhaust words, words do not exhaust thoughts, so is it not that the sage’s thoughts cannot be seen?’ Confucius said: ‘The sage establishes images to exhaust his thoughts, establishes hexagrams to exhaust the variations of his feelings, attaches explanations to exhaust his words, transforms and communicates them to exhaust their usefulness, drums and dances them to exhaust his spirit.” “In the ‘Appended Statements’ of the Book of Changes, we find a profound perspective on the dialectics of ‘speech and meaning.’ The Book of Changes holds that there exists a contradiction between speech and meaning, for ‘speech cannot fully convey meaning.’ Language, with its inherent limitations, fails to encapsulate the entirety of ideas. Yet, it acknowledges that ‘the sentiments of the sage are seen in his words.’ Sages endeavor to employ words to express genuine intentions, striving for ‘eloquence to establish sincerity.’ In other words, truth (‘sincerity’) can still be conveyed through ‘speech’ and ‘meaning.’ The hexagrams and their explanations within the Book of Changes comprehensively articulate the ‘intentions of the sage’ and the ‘sentiments of the sage.’ The so-called ‘intentions of the sage’ and the ‘sentiments of the sage’ are synonymous with the ‘Way.’ The Book of Changes further asserts: ‘The Book of Changes elucidates the past to observe the future, revealing the subtle essence, distinguishing things with appropriate names, and making accurate judgments in language, thus achieving a comprehensive grasp of truth.’ It suggests that by examining the past to understand the future, revealing the subtle aspects, appropriately naming things, and making precise linguistic judgments, one can grasp complete truth.” The Book of Changes emphasizes that its system of hexagrams is in accordance with the Tao of change, and thus can be used to grasp the Tao of heaven and earth. “The Book of Changes accords with the norms of heaven and earth, hence it can comprehensively supplement the ways of heaven and earth.” (The Appended Statements, Part I) This implies that the conceptual dialectics and objective dialectics of the Book of Changes are one and the same. It affirms the ability of logical thinking to grasp the laws of universal development.
