『공손룡자(公孫龍子)』해석의 제문제(諸問題) 비판

Abstract

Over the years, serious attention along with the resulting hot debate has been given to the works of interpretation by various scholars of “Gongsunlongzi.”The goal of this article is to show and criticize some limitations found in theories of interpretation of Gongsunlongzi by A. C. Graham, C.D. Hansen, Mao Zongsan, and Lao Siguang. Following Graham’s part-whole interpretation of the White Horse Dialogue, we are bound to fail in interpreting the “bianfeibubian” proposition. Further, Graham seems to adopt the position that Gongsun Long misunderstood the whole-part relationship as pertaining to the kind-attribute relationship. By contrast, Chad Hansen views the two propositions that are seemingly contradictory to each other: “a white horse is not a horse” and “a white horse is a horse (baima ma-ye)” as truths simultaneously. Notwithstanding this distinctive peculiarity, this interpretation is problematic in that we have no alternative way of interpreting the “the whiteness should be white” except to interpret the proposition in the non-stuff or stractification terms. This line of interpretation appears problematic when following the Hansen’s way of reducing all universals to stuffs. Mao Zongsan interprets the “fei” of the “baimafeima” differently and sees the White Horse Dialogue as pertaining to the relationship of exclusion or inequality between types. However, Mao’s theory of “kinds” fails to demonstrate how different his theory is from Fung Youlan’s theory of “gongxiang (universals)”Lao Siguang argues that “zhi (meaning “finger", “pointer", “concept” or “to indicate”) should be interpreted as referring to “kinds. (lei)” His point is that one individual should belong to its kind. However, his argument fails to answer the question of why the word “zhi” seems to replace the concept of “kinds (lei)” in the discourse on “Zhi and Wu” given that the word “kinds(lei)’ already appears in the discourse on “Tongbian.”All the foregoing critiques indeed lead us to reassess Fun Youlan’s theory. We cannot dismiss his theory just because there have been many criticisms leveled against his theory in the past in that his theory seems to have its own merits. In view of the foregoing, still Fung Youlan’s theory of “gongxiang” remains to be seminal and persuasive to some degree in the matter of interpretation of Gongsunlongzi.