20世纪中国的逻辑争辩与逻辑观

发布时间：2018-05-31 09:19

本文选题：20世纪 + 中国　；参考：《华东师范大学》2002年博士论文

【摘要】： 逻辑学在与哲学分离之前(必须对这种分离的有限性给予充分的注意)，为哲学家所用，是哲学家研究哲学问题的有力工具：在与哲学有所分离之后，逻辑学差不多成为所有学科的工具，但依然为哲学家所用；现代逻辑甚至成为研究某些哲学问题不可或缺的工具，它的某些方法的哲学方法论性质越来越明显。20世纪初，随着西方逻辑学的系统输入，中国哲学中传统的名实之辩演变为近代的逻辑论争。本文将通过对中西逻辑学、归纳与演绎、形式逻辑与辩证逻辑、传统逻辑与现代逻辑等相关争论的研究，考察20世纪逻辑观在中国的演变过程。世纪初的某些中国学者有自相矛盾之处：一方面以“名学”、“辩学”、“论理学”译logic，这意味着他们认为可以有不同的表述逻辑的系统即逻辑是多元的，中国关于逻辑的理论与西方的逻辑学是平等的；另一方面又往往以简单比附的方法研究中国古代关于逻辑的理论，这意味着他们持有西方逻辑学的一元逻辑观。比附法在中国古代逻辑史领域曾有过巨大的历史贡献，但一味地坚持这种研究方法，或只注意到它的优点而忽视它的缺点，则无疑是把西方的逻辑学视为唯一的逻辑学，这是一元逻辑观；即以西方的逻辑学为参照物，又把西方的逻辑学视为一个平等的他者，也就是在研究中即注意中西逻辑学之相同的一面，又注意中西逻辑学之不同的一面，这是一种多元逻辑观。严复与金岳霖的一元逻辑观虽有演绎与归纳的区别，但从反对中国旧学的治学方法这一角度看，二者又有一致之处；对中国传统哲学概念的改造，严复和金岳霖所走的路全然不同。无论是从信念的角度，还是从类比推理或时态逻辑的角度，张岱年都没能给归纳合理性以必然性的辩护，所以他反复强调归纳的基础在于实践。金岳霖试图给归纳以演绎主义的辩护，让体现实证精神的归纳也能够具有演绎的特点。陈波先生认为金岳霖的论证是机智的、是与西方哲学的平等对话，但其论证是无效的，他主张归纳问题在逻辑上无解。从20世纪30年代到世纪末，中国学者对辩证逻辑的看法走过了这样一个历程：30—40年代，有“辩证法可否成为逻辑”的争论；50—60年代，几乎没有学者公开对辩证逻辑作为逻辑的合法地位提出质疑；80年代之后，又起辩证逻辑是不是逻辑之争，但反对者的观点已变为“辩证逻辑不是逻辑”。80年代以后，中国学者对辩证法与辩证逻辑的区分已非常自觉。传统逻辑与现代逻辑的争论，主要表现在如何改革大学文科逻辑教材上，也表现在以哪种逻辑作为研究中国古代关于逻辑的理论发展史的工具更合适的问题上。在传统与现代之争中，不再有人对传统逻辑持诸如“传统逻辑不是逻辑”的观点，对传统逻辑加以批评的学者都是从其不科学、不严密、包含有非逻辑的内容等方面入手。古代关于逻辑的思想看作一个尚未确定的领域，从而也就不能不注意到对象与工具相统一的方面，在对象的内容范围尚不确定的情况下，我们研究的工具完全可以是多元化的，既要用传统逻辑的工具，也要用现代逻辑的各分支所提供的工具去研究，最低限度这种研究可以是尝试性的，但尝试性研究是科学研究的必经阶段。伴随着传统与现代之争，出现了“大逻辑”、“小逻辑”之说。所谓大逻辑、小逻辑实际上是逻辑观的分野，两种观点对逻辑学作不同的理解。大逻辑观对逻辑作广义的理解，在这种解读下，传统逻辑与现代逻辑、形式逻辑与辩证逻辑、演绎逻辑与归纳逻辑都是逻辑；小逻辑观对逻辑作较狭义的理解，只有演绎逻辑、形式逻辑、现代逻辑才是真正意义上的逻辑学，传统逻辑中的很多内容、辩证逻辑、培根所倡导的那种既可作归纳逻辑理解又可作归纳方法理解的归纳逻辑均被排除在逻辑学之外。虽然小逻辑观称大逻辑观不够科学，大逻辑观斥小逻辑观狭隘、不够宽容，但两种观点也有相通之处：小逻辑观所承认是逻辑学的内容，大逻辑观无不承认，，只是大逻辑观又在此基础上容纳了被小逻辑观所排斥的东西。小逻辑观所坚持的是形式化标准。 20世纪的中国逻辑史，逻辑观逐步丰富，并走过了从一元到多元再到一元多元并存的发展历程。
[Abstract]:Logic is a powerful tool for philosophers to study philosophical problems before the separation of philosophy from philosophy, which is used by philosophers. After the separation from philosophy, logic is almost a tool for all disciplines, but is still used by philosophers; modern logic even becomes a study. The philosophical methodology of some philosophies is an indispensable tool, and the philosophical methodology of some of its methods is becoming more and more obvious in the early.20 century. With the system input of western logic, the traditional argument in Chinese philosophy evolves into a modern logic argument. This article will be based on the logic of Chinese and western logic, the form logic and dialectical logic, and the traditional logic. Compilation and modern logic study on the evolution of logic view in China in twentieth Century.
Some Chinese scholars at the beginning of the century have their own paradoxes: on the one hand, the logic is translated by "naming", "argument" and "theory of science", which means that they think that the system that can have different logic is pluralistic, the theory of logic is equal to the logic of the west, and on the other hand it is often simple. The attached method studies the theory of logic in ancient China, which means that they hold a single logic view of western logic. The append method has had a great historical contribution in the field of ancient Chinese logic history, but it is no doubt that it is the logic of western logic to insist on this research method, or only pay attention to its advantages and ignore its shortcomings. It is regarded as the only logic, which is a meta logic view, that is, the western logic is regarded as the reference, and the western logic is regarded as an equal other, that is, to pay attention to the same side of the Chinese and western logic in the study, and to pay attention to the different aspects of the Chinese and western logic, which is a multi logic view.
Although the one yuan logic view of Yan Fu and Jin Yuelin has the difference between deductive and inductive, the two ones have the same point of view from the angle of opposing the study method of Chinese old school, and the way for the transformation of the concept of Chinese traditional philosophy is that the road of Yan Fu and Jin Yuelin is completely different, whether from the angle of belief, or from the angle of analogical reasoning or temporal logic. Zhang Dainian failed to defend the reasonableness of inductive reasonableness, so he repeatedly stressed that the basis of induction was practice. Jin Yuelin tried to justify induction by deductivism, so that the induction of positivist spirit could also have deductive characteristics. Mr. Chen Bo thought Jin Yuelin's argument was witty and equal to western philosophy. Dialogue, but its argument is invalid. He maintains that inductive questions are logically unsolved.
From 1930s to the end of the century, Chinese scholars have gone through such a process of dialectical logic: 30 - 40s, there is a debate on whether "Dialectics can be a logic"; from 50 to 60s, almost no scholar publicly questioned the legal status of dialectical logic as logic; after 80s, dialectical logic was not. Since the argument of the opposition has changed into "dialectical logic is not logic".80's, Chinese scholars have been very conscious of the distinction between dialectics and dialectical logic.
The debate between the traditional logic and the modern logic is mainly manifested in how to reform the logical teaching materials of the liberal arts of the University, which is also shown in which logic is more appropriate to study the history of the theory of logic in ancient China. In the dispute between traditional and modern, no longer have people to hold traditional logic, such as "traditional logic is not logic". The point of view, the scholars who criticize the traditional logic are from its unscientific, imprecise, and unlogical content. Ancient logic thought was regarded as an undetermined field, so that the object and the tool could not be unnoticed, and the scope of the object's content was still uncertain. The tools we study can be completely pluralistic, not only using the tools of traditional logic, but also the tools provided by the branches of modern logic. At the minimum, this kind of research can be an attempt, but the experimental study is a necessary stage of scientific research. The so-called big logic, the small logic, in fact, is the separation of the logic view, and the two views make different understandings of logic. The great logic is understood in the broad sense of logic. Under this interpretation, the traditional logic and modern logic, the formal logic and the dialectical logic, the deductive logic and the inductive logic are all logic; the small logic is narrower to the logic. Only deductive logic, formal logic, and modern logic are logic in the real sense, many contents and dialectical logic in traditional logic. The inductive logic that Bacon advocates, which can be understood by inductive logic and can be understood by inductive method, is excluded from logic. Although the view of small logic is called the big logic view is not enough. Science, the view of big logic denounced the narrow and intolerant view of small logic, but it was not tolerant, but the two views also had the same points: the view of small logic was the content of logic, the view of great logic admits, but on the basis of the view of logic, the view of the small logic adheres to the formalization standard.
The logic history of Chinese logic in twentieth Century is gradually enriched, and has gone through the course of development from one yuan to multiple to one yuan.
【学位授予单位】：华东师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2002
【分类号】：B81-092

【引证文献】