Preview

Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences

Advanced search

Features of Protocategorical Thinking in Ancient China

https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2018-7-51-58

Abstract

The article deals with to the early forms of categorical thinking. The conceptual schemes are formed independently of each other in various ancient civilizations, and that is an evidence of the universal nature of some fundamental features of early categorical thinking. The author proceeds from the idea that defning characteristics of categorical thinking (according to the prominentGermanphilosophersI.Kant and M. Heidegger) are the apriority and the extreme generality of concepts. Thus, a category is an extremely generalized concept, the last basis for the explanation of the all being by reducing it to a few defning beginnings; and this is an original, structuring perception form of conceptuality, which man has before any empirical experience (i.e. a priori). The same, with some reservations, can be said about the ancient sages’ elemental principles of being because these principles meet the above mentioned requirements of categoricity. These basic conceptual constructs (such as the binary, ternary and quinary classifcations inChinaand the four elements of the early Greek philosophers) with extreme generality reflect the structure of the world around and serve as the structural basis for less general concepts. Proposed explication of the conceptual nature of the Chinese “fve elemental forces” is appealing to the Kantian idea of the transcendental scheme. This idea brings us closer to understanding the early forms of categorical thinking in general and the schematism of Chinese thinking in particular. The article also considers the original interpretation of the Kantian scheme by Umberto Eco.

About the Author

Natalya Pushkarskaya
Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
Russian Federation
Research Fellow



References

1. Eco U. (2007) From the Tree to the Labyrinth: Historical Studies on the Sign and Interpretation (Russian Translation: Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt, 2016).

2. Grane M. (1934) Chinese Thought from Confucius to Laozi (Russian Translation: Moscow: Algoritm, 2008).

3. Heidegger M. (1993) Thing. In: Time and Being: Articles and Speeches (Russian Translation by V.V. Bibikhin: Moscow: Respublika, 1993).

4. Kant I. (1781) Critique of Pure Reason (Russian Translation: Minsk: Literatura, 1998).

5. Krushinskiy A.A. (2006) The Logic of Concept’s Formation in Ancient China. East. 2006. No. 5, pp. 5–22 (in Russian).

6. Krushinskiy A.A. (2013) The Logic of Ancient China. Moscow: Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russian).

7. Lebedev A.V. (1989) Fragments of Early Greek Philosophers. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).

8. Losev A.F. (2011) Platonism and Kantianism. In: Ogurtsov A.P. (ed.)Plato-mathematician. Moscow: Golos, 2011 (in Russian).

9. Pushkarskaya N.V. (2016) On the Problem of Early Categorical Thinking in Ancient China. Philosophy and Culture. 2016. No. 10, pp. 1430–1441 (in Russian).

10. Vycinas V. (1961) Earth and Gods. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.


Review

For citations:


Pushkarskaya N. Features of Protocategorical Thinking in Ancient China. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2018;(7):51-58. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2018-7-51-58



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 0235-1188 (Print)
ISSN 2618-8961 (Online)