基于生存情态差异的广义论证——以《墨子·小取》为核心

An Inquiry into General Argumentation Based on the Difference of Existential Modalities:Centered on“Xiaoqu”of The Mozi

推类思维以“生生”感通的宇宙为前提,推扩主体视域与情感,推动伦理政治实践。《墨子·小取》几乎没有涉及静态对象的种属、定义、演绎等知识论问题,而是聚焦于行为、情态与目的,其所区分的五种论证范式差别,实质既不是对古代中国字词、语法含混性的检讨,也不是对形式逻辑规则的提炼,而是推类思维基于不同生存情态的推、止、趋势之别而表现出的语言表述与论证规则的差异。“爱获,爱人”作为“是而然”的论证,其合法性源自推类思维的典型运用:仁爱之推扩。孝亲之情则有所止,不能推扩至他者;恶盗之情及身而止,不应迁怒无干系者,故与孝之所止,同为“是而不然”。“不是而然”诸命题皆讨论志意对行为的影响,此即“非命”要旨所在。鬼非人,孝情却可以延续至亲人亡故之鬼,此为“一是而一非”。“爱人”不同于“乘马”这样的无情态行为,需要周遍推扩才算充分完整地实现,此即“一周而一不周”。生存情态及其相伴随的论证逻辑具有意向性、过程性、特殊性、推扩性四个特点。生存情态不同于普通行为的特点会带来其独特的语法逻辑与推演方式,适用于一种情态的论证逻辑无法直接用于另一种。古代中国广义论证的合法性应当依据生存情态的特点,在推类思维的视域中给予理解与阐发。

The premise of Tuilei thinking is the succession of“Sheng-Sheng”in the ancient Chinese concept,promoting ethical and political practice.The difference between the five argumentation paradigms distinguished in“Xiaoqu”of The Mozi is not a review of the ambiguity of ancient Chinese words and grammar,nor a refinement of formal logic rules,but the difference between language expression and argumentation rules based on Tuilei thinking.The legitimacy of general argumentation in ancient China should be understood and elucidated from the perspective of Tuilei thinking according to the characteristics of existential modalities.