The Ancient Chinese have already been using Semantical Kritiks

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 6
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
庄子与惠子游于濠梁之上。庄子曰：“鲦鱼出游从容，是鱼之乐也。”惠子曰：“子非鱼，安知鱼之乐？”庄子曰：“子非我，安知我不知鱼之乐？”惠子曰：“我非子，固不知子矣；子固非鱼也，子之不知鱼之乐，全矣！”庄子曰：“请循其本。子曰‘汝安知鱼乐’云者，既已知吾知之而问我。我知之濠上也。[1]
A rough translation:

A: Wow, look at the way the fishes are swimming! They must be happy!
B: You are not the fishes, how do you know that they are happy?
A: You are not me, how do you know that I don't know that I know that the fishes are happy?
B: I am not you, so I can't understand you; but you aren't the fishes, so you can't tell if they are happy or not. That makes sense.
A: Let's go back to the original premise. You are asking me "How do you know that they are happy", implying that you know that I know that they are happy. As to how I know, I know it because I am looking at the fishes right here and right now.

This is an excerpt from an actual Chinese classic, and it is written into the textbook. Happy or sad, this excerpt isn't meant to teach how semantical K's work.

#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
The 'isn't part confuses me?

this excerpt isn't meant to teach how semantical K's work. - Intelligence_06
Though I'd agree the ancient Chinese were having philosophical discussions and critiques of one and another's arguments.

Topic's author
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Lemming
This excerpt is meant to illustrate that the Chinese will literally discuss about anything.

Though, that is where I started my interest in debating. If it weren’t that, I would probably be an edgy emo teenager instead of someone who manipulates the structure of my thinking.
#4
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
I've never understood what a Kritick is...
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
I like the example a lot although I'd disagree that the counter argument is a kritik or even semantic.

  • Not a kritik because not a policy argument- there's no establishment to challenge
  • Not semantic because the counter is not questioning the meaning of the condition to be proved: happy
    • I'd say that B's challenge is an accusation of anthropomorphic fallacy: what proof exists that fish have emotions like humans do?
    • A tries whataboutism with an accusation of mind projection fallacy: you don't know what I don't know
      • But in a debate, A loses on that point because the burden to prove the happiness of the fish is on A.  It doesn't matter what B knows of A's mind- it only matters what A can prove about the emotional capacity of fish. Just because A is an eyewitness doesn't make him an expert on piscine psychology.

#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
I should say that A loses in a Western debate.  I have heard that Chinese arguments tend to value more circularity and a return to the point of origin (like your example)  although I have never studied such arguments and am ignorant as to how such an argument progresses to a decisive conclusion.