I know that the east-west divide is more than a little artificial, especially when it comes to math and formal logic, but are there any substantial differences between the West adn East in how “formal logic” would have been taught in the distant pass, or even now? I guess, another way of putting this is: who were the Aristotles of ancient India and China? Did they come to radically different conclusions or radically different lines of inquiry?
See the wikipedia page on logic. There are a couple references to Chinese & Indian philosophers.
Depends on what particular tradition you’re talking about. I’ve got the first volume of Stanislaw Schayer’s work on Buddhist (sp?) logic, and it’s also discussed in Logic Made Easy. (Buy the paperback, I’m in an endnote. ) I can’t give you names right now, but I’m posting so that I’ll remember to check when I get home.
Basically, the classical Buddhist logic system had constructions similar to Aristotlean syllogisms—they had a couple extra terms for metaphor, IIRC. Again, IIRC, that system of logic doesn’t really inform a lot of contemporary Buddhist thinking; perhaps we were lucky in creating a cult-like worship of Aristotle. Anyway, the earlier forms of logic were fairly similar.
I don’t think Eastern thinkers really followed up the way Europeans did, so I’m not recalling anything even remotely close to formal logic, such as sentential logic. I’ll double check when I get home.
I haven’t been able to read Schayer’s book, mostly because it begins with Indian history & culture, which annoys me; however, Bennett’s section on the subject draws heavily on Schayer.
I hope that helps, I’ll try to get some more specific facts later today.
It seems to me that the logic used is dependent to a large degree on the belief system of the society or individual being considered. i.e. you have to know what is is.
I’m way behind schedule tonight, and in a pretty crappy mood, so I apologize if this is too terse.
I was mistaken, I do not have Schayer’s book; I have Stcherbatsky’s work, although I have an earlier copy than the one linked to.
I also have a copy of Tillemans’s Scripture, Logic, Language, which is verily unreadable since he is, near as I can figure, a downright shitty writer. He actually quotes himself for proof, and does so in French. So, unless he wants to actually write something worth reading, he can fuck off.
So, turning to Stcherbatsky’s work, please read the following:
From Bennett, who drew heavily on Stcherbatsky, we have the following:
So, in at least a quasi-formal sense, Buddhist logic matches Aristotlian logic quite well. This is important, indeed this should be obvious, since logic necessarily linked with mathematics and mathematics with the physical world. Culture does not, in any way, shape, or form, decide whether the event of two things combined with another event of two things comes to an event of four things.
The book called The Geography of Thought is brilliant and eye-opening and a fucking amazing read. We in the west appear to process information differently from those in the east; however, those are learned things: Japanese mothers speak to young children of relations, while American mothers speak of things. Logic, however, is not subject to that sort of thing.
Why western logic and Buddhist logic didn’t reach the same heights is beyond me. And while I have great respect for eastern cultures, it’s plain stupid to suggest that the logical and mathematical accomplishments of Europeans was matched elsewhere in the world.
But, to answer the question directly, yes, there were eastern equivalents to Aristotlean logic. And I wish the hippies I talk to today would understand that.
I hope that helps!