自從西方邏輯學傳入漢土以來，不少人懷疑在此之前，華人原本是否具有邏輯思維？而學界也一直環繞「是否有所謂中國邏輯」 、「中國邏輯是否等同於西方邏輯」等議題存在爭論。在這些場合中，漢字的一些特質便往往被提出作為反對的證據。而一般的共識是：漢字以象形為基礎，所以主張華人原本不具有邏輯思維，且以此作為理由，來堅持華人只重直覺；而另一方面，主張中國邏輯的人，便以此作為理由，來肯定華人具有「形象思維」。但由於「形象思維」缺乏「推理」這一環節，所以難以符合「邏輯思維」的資格。那麼究竟是否有所謂「中國邏輯」？如果答案是肯定的，那麼這是一種怎樣的「邏輯」呢？要釐清此點，則必須探討華人的思維模式之真正特質何在。本講座的主題係作為華人思維模式之「類比思维」乃至 「類比邏輯」(墨辯)。此中將採取一對比的方式，通過與西方的「演繹思維模式」(形式邏輯)、以及印度的 「指示思維模式」(佛家因明)之比較以顯示其特質。特別地、於論證緣何只此有三種基本思維模式上，將提出一記號學的證成。而針對AI (機器思维)之風行，亦將通過類比思维之特質來證明其局限性之所在。
- 曹志成，〈陳榮灼先生對比較哲學的貢獻〉，《鵝湖月刊》397(2008/07): 18-26.
- Wing-Cheuk, Chan. “Review of The Buddhist Roots of Zhu Xi’s Philosophical Thought,” in Dao (2020) 19: 153-157.
- 陳榮灼，〈程伊川與朱子之基本分歧——一希臘哲學的視點〉，《中央大學人文學報》第五十五期（2013/07）: 75-105.
Since the import of Western logic onto Chinese soil, many people have been doubtful about whether the Chinese had originally been able to think logically. In parallel, a lot of scholars have raised the following questions: “Was there a Chinese logic?”, “Is Chinese logic the same as Western logic?” In these contexts, some specific features of Chinese characters have been employed as evidence in proving the thesis of non-existence of so-called Chinese logic. Nowadays a more popular consensus is that due to the hieroglyphic nature of the Chinese language, logical thinking was originally foreign to Chinese people, whereas they were more at home with intuition. Only recently some Chinese scholars in the mainland claimed that Chinese people were also skilled at “imaginary thinking.” However, given the fact that “imaginary thinking” does not consist of any reasoning, it is not qualified as “logical thinking.” So, “is there really a Chinese logic?” If the answer is affirmative, then what kind of logic is it? In order to clarify such an important issue, it is necessary to explore the genuine characteristics of the Chinese way of thinking. These lectures aim to show that the Chinese way of thinking is basically “analogical,” and as a result, Chinese logic consists of “analogical inferences.” In illustrating the Chinese way of thinking (Chinese logic), we will contrast it to the Western deductive way of thinking (formal logic) and the Indian indicative way of thinking (Buddhist logic). Particularly, in arguing for the thesis that there are only three elementary ways of thinking, it will provide a semiotic justification. In regard to the popularity of AI (machine thinking), we will show its limitation in terms of the specific character of the analogical way of thinking.