Famous Debates in Ancient China

Qingyun Zou
​The five major philosophical schools in ancient China
1. Confucianism
Confucianism is the most influential school in ancient China. As a manifestation of the inherent value system of China, Confucianism is not an academic or a school in the usual sense.
Confucianism has a profound influence on Chinese culture. For thousands of years, the society has taught the four books and the Five Classics. The traditional sense of responsibility, moderation, and loyalty and filial piety are the result of the combination of Confucianism and authoritarian rule. Therefore, Confucianism is the mainstream thought along with the contemporary.

​2. Legalist
The Legalist is a political spokesperson for civilians during the Warring States Period. As a major faction, they have put forward the ideas and concepts of the rule of law that still have far-reaching influence. This is easy to see that they pay great attention to the legal system and the law, using law as a kind of compulsory tool for organizing social rule. These ideas embodying the construction of the legal system, have been used until now, and have become the main ruling means for the centralists to stabilize social unrest. The birth of contemporary Chinese law is influenced by the thought of Legalism. The legalist, cultural, and moral constraints of a country are still very strong, and the impact on the modern legal system is also profound.

​3.Taoist
In the Spring and Autumn Period time, Laozi gathered the wisdom of the ancient sages. Taoist sums up the essence of ancient Taoist thoughts and forms a moral theory of "doing nothing for nothing", which indicates that Taoist thought has been formally formed.
Taoism takes "Tao" as the core, believes that Heaven and Taoism is inaction, advocates Taoism and nature, and proposes political and military strategies such as inaction, female protects male, use softness to fight with doughty.
It is one of the most important philosophical schools in China is in the cultural fields of China and has a tremendous impact on the culture of China and the world. A large number of Chinese and foreign scholars have begun to notice and draw on the positive thoughts of Taoism. Therefore, scholars say: "Taoism can be seen as a great product of the Chinese nation. It is the center of national thought, and there are many people who see it as a benevolent person. It is said that the people use it without knowing the temperament."

​4. Mohist
The main ideas of the Mohist School are: equal love among people, opposition to war of aggression, promotion of thrifty, inherit the cultural wealth of predecessors, master the natural law and so on.
Because of the unique political attributes of the Mohist thought, and the official and collusive policies of the Western Han Dynasty Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, "the slogan of the unique Confucianism", the Mohist family was constantly suppressed and gradually lost the realistic foundation of the existence of the Mohist thoughts; At the end of the Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China, scholars re-excavated the Mohist family from the pile of paper, and found its progressiveness. In recent years, through the efforts of many new ink-makers, the Mohist theory has recovered, and it has shown its potential for progress.

5．Military
The military family is a school that studied military theory in China in the early Qin and early Han dynasties and engaged in military activities. It is the essence of the ancient Han military thought. One of the hundred families. According to the "Han·Yi Wen Zhi" records, the military family is divided into four categories: military power, military situation, soldiers, yin and yang, and military skill. Representatives of the military family include Sun Wu and Sima Yi in the Spring and Autumn Period, Sun Wei, Wu Qi, Yan, Zhao Lux, Bai Qi, Han Liang, Zhang Han, Han Xin, etc. Today, there are military books such as "The Art of War", "Sun Bing's Art of War", "Wu Zi", "Six ", "Xunzi" and so on. The military family's works are rich in naive materialism and dialectic thinking.
Sophistry, or debate itself, is a methodology. More precisely, the debate is a method of argumentation. Its fundamental feature is a distorted argument. The sophistry is different from arbitrary and rumors. There is no reason at all for arbitrariness. People treat it as a strong word; rumors are made out of nothing, sounds malicious. However, when being argued about its truth, it always needs a lot of "bases" to prove it. So, it can always confuse people.

Famous Debate Stories:
You Are Not a Fish
Zhuangzi and his friend Hui Shi walked on a bridge in Surabaya.
Zhuangzi looked at the squid in the water and said, "The squid is leisurely in the water. This is the joy of the fish."
Keiko said: "You are not a fish, how do you know the happiness of the fish?"
Zhuangzi said: "You are not me, how do you know that I don't know the happiness of the fish?"
Keiko said: "I am not you, I didn't know you. You are not a fish. You don't know the happiness of the fish. It is completely OK."
Zhuangzi said: "Please return to the topic we started. You said: 'Where do you know the happiness of the fish', etc., I already know that I know the joy of the fish and ask me, I know it on the banks of the Lishui River. "
 
White Horse is not a Horse (sophistry)
Guest: Can you say that white horse is not a horse?
Gong Sunlong: Yes.
Guest: Why?
Gong Sunlong: "Horse" is the regulation of the "shape" of the object, and "White Horse" is the regulation of the "color" of the horse. The regulations on the "color" and the prescriptiveness on the "shape" are obviously different. Therefore, the result of different regulations on different concepts, white horse and horse are also different.
Guest: Here is a white horse. It cannot be said that no horse is here. Since it can't be said that there is no horse, then isn't the white horse a horse? Since there are white horses called horses, why are white horses not horses?
Gong Sunlong: If you ask for a "horse", both the yellow horse and the black horse can meet the requirements; if you ask for a "white horse", the yellow horse and the black horse cannot meet the requirements. If the white horse is a horse, then asking for a horse is exactly the same as asking for a white horse. However, if there is no difference between asking for a horse and asking for a white horse, then why do yellow horses and black horses sometimes agree to have horses instead of agreeing to have white horses? "Since you can promise to have a horse and you can't promise a white horse." This clearly shows that asking for a "horse" is completely different from asking for a "white horse." Therefore, the same yellow horse or black horse can promise to have a horse, and can not promise a white horse. "This is to say that the original "White Horse is a horse" hypothesis cannot be established." Therefore, "white horse is different from horse" is a clear truth.
Guest: As you can see, it is different from a horse to have a color. But there are no colorless horses in the world. So, can you say that horses with colors in the world are not horses?
Gong Sunlong: Ma has a color, so there is a white horse. If the horse has no color, there is only a "horse". How can it be called a white horse? However, the horse that stipulates that the horse is white is different from the "horse". The so-called white horse is limited to white, and the horse that is limited to white is different from the horse. Therefore, the white horse is not a horse.
Guest: Ma, is a horse that is not limited by "white"; white is white that is not limited by "horse". It is certainly not possible to combine the two concepts of white and horse to define and become a new concept to call an unrestricted concept. Therefore, it is wrong to think that a white horse is not a horse.
Gong Sunlong: As you can see, there are horses in the white horse, but can you say "Is there a yellow horse in the white horse?"
Guest: Of course you can't say that.
Gong Sunlong (the answerer again): Since acknowledging that "there is a difference between having a horse and having a yellow horse" is to distinguish the yellow horse from the horse. This means that the yellow horse is not a horse; since the yellow horse is separated from the horse Come, instead of equating the white horse with the horse, isn’t this just a bird that sinks into the water and makes it so funny in the West? This is a complete logical mess.
Gong Sunlong: I think that there is no white horse to say that there is no horse. This is not to consider the "white horse" but the horse shape. However, "White Horse" is a concept of "cannot be separated" with horses. Therefore, the concept of a white horse cannot be called a horse. Therefore, what is called a "horse" is simply called a horse in the shape of a horse, but cannot be called a horse in a white horse. Therefore, the concept of a horse is not a concept of any specific colored horse.
White is not limited to the whiteness of any kind of thing. The specific thing does not hinder the essence of "white" as "white", so it can be ignored. White horse is a horse limited to white. White (such as white horses) limited to specific things is different from abstract, general "white." "The same reason", "horse" is not limited to which color, so yellow horses and black horses can count; white horses are limited to white horses, yellow horses and black horses have "white horses" Different colors can't count. Therefore, only White Horse can count. "In other words, only White Horse can agree to the concept of "White Horse". Both Huang Ma and Dark Horse can't agree with the concept of "White Horse". The concept of unqualified is different from the concept of being limited. So, there is a difference between white horse and horse.
 
Divide Strength and White
I can't see the stone's strength, I can only see the white color of the stone, so "no strength". My hand can't feel the white color of the stone, it can only feel the stone's strong, so "no white"; when you see white, you can't feel its Strength, when I can't see the white, I feel strong, seeing and not seeing, and the result is separated. It is inferred that the "strength" and "white" in the "stone" cannot coexist, so they are separated from each other.

References：
​https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%AF%B8%E5%AD%90%E7%99%BE%E5%AE%B6/16808
​https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%8F%A4%E4%BB%A3%E5%93%B2%E7%90%86%E6%95%85%E4%BA%8B%E5%A4%A7%E8%A7%82