In the 6th century BC, the philosopher epimenides, a Crete, said, "All Cretes are lying, and one of the poets also said so." This is the origin of this famous paradox. It is mentioned in the Bible: "A local prophet of Park Yung-soo said,' The Celts often lie, but they are evil beasts, greedy and lazy'" (Titus 1). It can be seen that this paradox is famous, but Paul is not interested in its logical solution. People will ask: Is Epiminides lying? The simplest form of this paradox is:
1-2 "I'm lying"
If he is lying, then "I am lying" is a lie, so he is telling the truth; But if this is true, he is lying again. Contradictions are inevitable. A copy of it:
1-3 "This sentence is incorrect"
A standard form of this paradox is: if event A occurs, non-A is deduced; if non-A occurs, non-A is deduced, which is a self-contradictory infinite logic cycle. One-sided body in topology is the expression of image. The philosopher Russell once seriously thought about this paradox and tried to find a solution. He said in the seventh chapter "Mathematical Principles" of "The Development of My Philosophy": "Since Aristotle, logicians of any school seem to be able to deduce some contradictions from their recognized premises. This shows that there is a problem, but it cannot point out the way to correct it. In the spring of 1903, one of the contradictory discoveries interrupted the logical honeymoon I was enjoying. " He said: The liar paradox simply sums up the contradiction he found: "The liar said,' Everything I said is false'. In fact, this is what he said, but this sentence refers to all he said. Only by including this sentence in that crowd will there be a paradox. " (ditto) Russell tried to solve it through hierarchical propositions: "The first-level propositions can be said to be those that do not involve the whole proposition; Second-level propositions are those that involve the whole first-level proposition; The rest is like this, even infinite. " But this method has not achieved results. "During the whole period of 1903 and 1904, I almost devoted myself to this matter, but it was completely unsuccessful." (ditto) Principles of Mathematics tries to derive the whole pure mathematics on the premise of pure logic, and explains the concepts in logical terms to avoid the ambiguity of natural language. But in the preface of this book, he called it "publishing a book that contains so many unresolved disputes." It can be seen that it is not easy to completely solve this paradox from the logic of mathematical basis. Then he pointed out that in all logical paradoxes, there is a kind of "reflexive self-reference", that is, "it contains something about that whole, and this kind of thing is a part of the whole." This view is easy to understand. If this paradox is said by someone Park Jung-soo thinks, it will be automatically eliminated. But in set theory, the problem is not so simple.
1-4 barber paradox
In Saville village, the barber put up a sign: "I only cut the hair of those people in the village who don't cut their own hair." Someone asked him, "Do you cut your hair?" The barber was speechless at once. This is a paradox: a barber who doesn't cut his hair belongs to the kind of person on the signboard. As promised, he should give himself a haircut. On the other hand, if the barber cuts his own hair, according to the brand, he only cuts the hair of people in the village who don't cut their own hair, and he can't cut it himself. So no matter how the barber answers, he can't rule out the internal contradictions. This paradox was put forward by Russell in 1902, so it is also called "Russell paradox". This is a popular and story-telling expression of the paradox of set theory. Obviously, there is also an unavoidable problem of "self-reference".
(0)
answer
1 building
20 1 1-03-27 03:28
Report |
Posts related to mathematical paradox
Reply: A paradox about mathematical induction: On the nth day, n red eyes committed suicide. ..
16 a paradox about mathematical induction: on the nth day, n red eyes committed suicide. ..
8 A paradox about mathematical induction: On the nth day, n red eyes committed suicide. ...
10 Math problems, abnormal problems and paradoxes are all collected here.
8 1 a paradox of mathematical induction;
Never leave your heart.
Pest killer
six
2-2 Dichotomy Paradox
This is also a paradox put forward by Zhi Nuo: when an object travels a certain distance to reach D, it must first reach half of the distance D, then a quarter, an eighth and a sixteenth, so that it can be divided indefinitely. Therefore, this object will never reach D. These conclusions do not exist in practice, but they are logically impeccable. Zhi Nuo even thought: "There can be no movement from one place to another, because if there is such movement, there will be' perfect infinity', which is impossible." If Achilles really catches up with the tortoise at T, then, "this is an illogical phenomenon, so it is by no means the truth, but just a scam". This means that the senses are unreliable and there is no logical reliability. He believes that "it is absolutely impossible to be endless." According to this theory of motion, Zhi Nuo also proposed a similar paradox of motion:
2-3 "The arrow does not move"
In Zhi Nuo's view, because the flying arrow has an instantaneous position at every moment of flight, it is no different from being still in this position. So, is the sum of infinite static positions equal to motion? Or the infinite repetition of static motion? There was a similar saying in ancient China, such as:
2-4 "The scenery of birds has not moved"
This is the proposition of Hui Shi, a famous Chinese artist, which is the same as "flying an arrow without moving". This is a conflict between irresistible reasoning and inevitable facts. In the era of Greek tragedy, the German philosopher Nietzsche called Zeno's paradox "the paradox of denying feelings" in his philosophy. Although it is completely true that Achilles caught up with the tortoise who started first in the race, why is it "illogical"? Because Zhi Nuo used the concept of infinity, which is a logical assumption, there can be no infinity in the real world, so the assumption and reality are contradictory. Nietzsche said: In these two paradoxes, "infinity" is regarded as nitric acid to dissolve reality. If infinity can never be perfect and stillness can never become motion, then the fact is that the arrow has not moved at all, has not moved at all, has not escaped from stillness, and time has not passed. In other words, in this so-called reality, which is only false after all, there is neither time nor space, nor exercise. Finally, even the arrow itself is a virtual image, because it comes from diversity and from the illusion of disunity aroused by the senses. The following is Nietzsche's analysis: If an arrow exists, it is fixed, eternal, non-creative, fixed and eternal. This is an absurd concept! Assuming that motion is a real reality, there is no stillness. Therefore, the arrow has no position and no space. Another ridiculous point of view! Assuming that time is real, then it cannot be divided indefinitely. The time required for an arrow to fly must consist of a finite number of moments, and each moment must be an atom. Still an absurd concept! Nietzsche came to the conclusion that all our ideas will fall into contradiction as long as they regard what they have experienced and learned from this intuitive world as "eternal truth". If there is absolute motion, there is no space; If there is absolute space, there will be no movement; If there is absolute existence, there will be no diversity; If there is absolute diversity, there will be no unity. In fact, the unity of opposites mentioned in these two paradoxes has been perfectly solved today, which is the birth of limit theory. Newton started calculus when he was studying sports, but because there was no solid theoretical basis, there was a "second mathematical crisis" in history. /kloc-At the beginning of the 9th century, French scientists, led by Cauchy, established the limit theory, which was further tightened by the German mathematician Wilstrass, making the limit theory a solid foundation of calculus and the problem of motion a reasonable explanation. It is conceivable that it was difficult for people to explain this paradox before calculus and limit theory were invented or accepted. Senses are different from thinking. When the Greeks used concepts to judge reality, if there was a contradiction between logic and reality, Zhi Nuo accused the senses of "deception". When thinking cannot find a reasonable explanation, intuitive forms, symbols or metaphors are useless. Although Nietzsche's analysis is detailed and incisive, he can't synthesize them.
answer
second floor[British English]; third floor[American English]
20 1 1-03-27 03:28
Report |
Never leave your heart.
Pest killer
six
2-5 "A hammer of one foot, half a day, inexhaustible"
This is a famous saying of Hui Shi in The World of Zhuangzi. More than two thousand years ago, the ancients in China also used the concept of infinity. Hui Shi (about 370 BC-365 BC, 438 BC+00 BC), a famous Song poet in the Warring States Period, was once the Prime Minister of Liang, a wizard of argument, a good friend of Zhuangzi, and a representative figure of famous artists alongside Gong Sunlong. Most of his works are dead, and only fragments of his words and deeds can be seen from the discussions of other scholars. Hui Shi's theory emphasizes the * * * phase of everything, so the difference between things is only a relative concept. There are some strange propositions related to Hui Shi, such as "Mountain and Zeping", "Egg has hair", "Chicken has three legs", "Dog can be a cow", "Fire is not hot", "Moment is not square", "White dog is black" and "A solitary pony has no mother". Hui Shi's paradox is also very influential in the west. Mao Zedong basically accepted Hui Shi's viewpoint of infinite separability from the perspective of dialectics. 1August 1999 18, when talking with philosophers, he said: "Lenin said that everything can be divided. Taking atoms as an example, not only atoms can split, but also electrons can split. " He added: "The electron itself has not split yet, and it will split one day. It is a truth that' a hammer of one foot, take half of it every day, will last forever'. If you don't believe me, just try. If there is exhaustion, there will be no science. " People noticed that Mao Zedong was very partial to this sentence, such as visiting Qian Sanqiang in the mid-1950s,1meeting Zhou Peiyuan and Yu Guangyuan in August 1997, 1973, 1974 meeting Yang Zhenning and Li Zhengdao, etc. ?
2-6 "As many points?"
There are as many points on the line segment of 1 cm as on the Pacific Ocean. Many philosophers and mathematicians are afraid of falling into paradox. German mathematician Cantor (1845- 19 18) received his doctorate at the age of 23, and declared war on infinity six years later. He successfully proved that the points on the straight line can correspond to the points on the plane one by one, and can also correspond to the points in the space one by one. Because of infinity, there are as many points on the line segment of 1 cm as there are points in the Pacific Ocean and the whole earth. However, Cantor's "infinite set" conflicted with the traditional mathematical concept and was reviled. It was not until 1897 that his achievements were recognized, and almost all mathematics was based on set theory. Russell praised his work as "probably the greatest work that this era can boast of." At the same time, there are some self-contradictory phenomena in set theory, especially Russell's Barber Paradox, which has impacted the foundation of mathematics in a very concise form. This is the "third mathematical crisis", and mathematicians have made unremitting discussions since then. For example, 1996 Cambridge University Press published Hendeka's Re-examination of Mathematical Principles, which is based on Russell's mathematical principles (1903) and tries to improve the foundation of logic and mathematics. This paper mainly expounds the IF (Dependent Friendly First Order Logic) newly created by Hendeka and Sanduo and its possible influence. It challenges many recognized concepts, such as axiomatic set theory as an appropriate framework of mathematical theory, and further discusses the liar paradox. Will it lead to a revolution in logic and mathematics? We will wait and see. This is the second part: the paradox caused by one-sided reasoning and the paradox caused by the contradiction between name and reality. (3) a paradox caused by multi-fruit one-sided reasoning This form of paradox is similar to sophistry. Sophistication is disgusting in reality, but it occupies a considerable position in the discussion of logic. Condorcet said: "The Greeks abused the disadvantages of everyday language and toyed with the meanings of words, so as to confuse the human spirit in the sad ambiguity. But this sophistry has also given the human spirit a kind of exquisiteness, and at the same time it has exhausted their power to oppose illusory problems. " There was once a sophistry school in the ancient Greek philosophy school, also called the wise school. They are skeptical about natural philosophy and believe that there is no absolute truth in the world. The aforementioned Prota Guerra (about 485 BC-4 BC10) is his famous representative. He thinks: "Man is the measure of everything." The Athens government expelled him and burned his books because he advocated atheism. Socrates and Aristotle both opposed sophistry. Hegel said that Socrates often used his dialectics to attack sophistry, especially Plodouglas. Although most of the theories of these wise men have been lost, we can still learn some arguments from Aristotle's Metaphysics (translated by Wu Shoupeng). According to Aristotle's records, Plato (427-347 BC) once said that sophistry is devoted to discussing "nothing" because the topic of sophistry is always entangled in the attributes of things. For example, civilization and reading are the same, but they are different. Are "civilized Glisco" and "Glisco" the same? And the conclusion that nothing is always like this, whether it is thought to be caused by it or not (paradox) (ibid.). Hegel (1770- 183 1) who rejected formal logic and advocated dialectics said that Plato invented dialectics. "Plato used dialectics to point out the finiteness of all fixed intellectual provisions. He gave a lot of performance from a push, but he still pointed out that the reason why more is more can only be defined as one. " Aristotle believes that all existing things must have a process of formation and disappearance, while attribute things do not.
answer
Fourth Floor
20 1 1-03-27 03:28
Report |
Never leave your heart.
Pest killer
six
However, we must trace back to the essence and origin of contingency as much as possible; Perhaps it is understandable why we can't establish an academic study on attributes (Chapter 2, Volume 6 of Metaphysics). In his view, sophistry is "academic about attributes" rather than "the essence and origin of genus". It is maturity, not knowledge, that perfects the academic system. Condorcet said in "The Fourth Age" in the Outline of the History of Human Spiritual Progress (translated by He Zhaowu and He Bing): However, Greek wise men and Greek scholars "have not discovered the truth, but are casting various systems; They ignore the observation of facts in order to devote themselves to their own imagination; Since they can't base their opinions on proof, they try to defend them with sophistry. " It can be seen that the fatal point of sophistry lies in ignoring "essence" and pestering "attribute", and inferring specious conclusions from existing things, without examining the truth of things in detail or proving them on the basis of practice. The best way to deal with sophistry is to use dialectics and make textual research in practice.
3- 1 "What is sophistry?"
A student asked his Greek teacher, "What is sophistry?" The teacher asked, "There are two people, A is clean and B is dirty. If you let them take a bath, which one of them will take a bath? " There are four possibilities here, one is to wash his nails, because he has the habit of loving cleanliness; The second is B wash, because he needs it; Third, both people wash, one because of habit and the other because of need; Fourth, neither of them washed, because dirty people have no habit of taking a bath, and clean people don't have to wash. These four possibilities are opposite to each other. No matter what answer the student gives, the teacher can refute it, because he doesn't need an objective standard, which is sophistry.
3-2 "Father died before mother"
This is a self-evident proverb. There are also four explanations: first, "the father is there, and the mother dies first"; Second, "the father died before the mother"; Third, if parents are alive, it can be interpreted as the future; Fourth, even if both parents die, it can be interpreted as "when the father is around, the mother died." Or "father died before mother", which is a two-way street. In logical order, the above two examples are just the opposite. Both positive and negative propositions can be quibbled according to the so-called objective reasons, forming self-proof or cross-examination. So Gracian said in The Book of Wisdom: An Eternal Classic of Life: "The world is a kind of deception. At first glance, this is quite reasonable and frightening because it is exciting and novel, but when its disguise is exposed, it will bring shame to itself. "
3-3 Deng Xi's Theory of Body Salvation
"Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals" recorded a story that a member of Zheng Fujia was drowned in a flood in the river. The body was salvaged by others, and the rich family demanded redemption. But the price of the person who found the body is too high, and the family members of the rich family are unwilling to accept it. They came to Deng to analyze their ideas. Deng Xi said, "Don't worry, who else will he sell it to besides you?" The man who found the body was very anxious. He went to Deng for advice. Deng Xi replied, "Don't worry, if he doesn't buy from you, who else can he buy from?" Deng was born in the late Spring and Autumn Period. Contemporary with Laozi and Confucius, he was the originator of famous scholars in the Warring States period and also a famous litigator. His work has been lost. With the same facts, Deng came to two diametrically opposite conclusions, each of which sounds logical, but when put together, it is absurd. Does Deng hope that after a period of stalemate, the two sides can find an acceptable price balance point? We can only guess. Later, Deng was killed because Zi Chan thought he was "indiscriminate, excessive and changeable". It can be seen that Deng is a man without principles. As a litigator, Deng is good at rhetoric, rather than jumping out of sophistry to find an objective solution. Although rigorous logical reasoning is persuasive, it will eventually come back to reality.
3-4 GongSunLong on the Covenant of Qin and Zhao
"Lu's Spring and Autumn Annals" introduces a paradox of Gong Sunlong: Qin and Zhao signed a treaty: if Qin wants to do something in the future, Zhao will help; What Zhao wants to do, Qin will help. Soon, the State of Qin attacked the State of Wei, and the State of Zhao intended to rescue it. The king of Qin was unhappy and sent someone to see the king of Zhao: the king of Qin wanted to do something, and the king of Zhao helped him; What Zhao wants to do, Qin will help. Now the State of Qin is going to attack the State of Wei, while the State of Zhao is going to rescue them. This is a breach of contract. The prince of Zhao told Ping Yuanjun the news, and Ping Yuanjun asked GongSunLong for advice. Gong Sunlong replied: "The king also sent someone to the king of Qin to say that Zhao intended to save Wei, but now the king of Qin did not help Zhao, which is not in line with the treaty." Whatever the truth of this fable, his reasoning is impeccable. Gong Sunlong's response to the Covenant of Qin and Zhao is in the same strain as Deng's theory of corpse redemption. But GongSunLong is on the weak side of Zhao Wei against Qiang Qin. 3-5 "He is also right and wrong, and this is also right and wrong." This is a sentence in Zhuangzi's Theory of Everything, which is famous for emphasizing the relativity of things. For example, people will have a backache when sleeping in a wet place, but will loach have a backache? Will people be timid when climbing high trees, and will apes be timid? Therefore, his conclusion is: "He is also right or wrong, and this is also right or wrong." Each has its own relative standards. Tuanjiebao once published a spoonful of "master tricks". It is said that Kang attended Mr. Ma Xulun's "Zhuangzi Philosophy" class at Peking University 19 19 years ago and was never late. On one occasion, Ma Xulun asked Kang why he was late. Kang Baiqing replied, "It's too far." Mr. Ma disagreed and asked, It only takes three to five minutes to walk from your residence. How can it be called excessive? Kang did not show weakness, saying: Mr. Zhuangzi, Zhuangzi said: "He is also right and wrong, and this is also right and wrong." Sir, it's not far. I think it's far.
Package reply
Fifth Floor
20 1 1-03-27 03:28
Report |
Roaring cockroach 18: Hello, landlord, you are still 3-5 short. Would you please send it? I was in a hurry not to see this paragraph. Thank you, good man!
2012-11-25 23: 29 reply
I also said.
Never leave your heart.
Pest killer
six
Ma Xulun had nothing to say at the moment.
3-6 "I didn't take bribes"
A businessman was accused of taking bribes. He declared: "I didn't take bribes." Obviously, businessmen are both observers and observed. We don't know whether he defends as an observer or quibbles as an observed person. These two inferences are logical, and if there is no other evidence, it can't be judged (quoted from the Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems Network).
3-7 Prisoner Paradox
Two people, A and B, steal things. Interrogation separately, the possible penalties are as follows: A denies B denies: A and B are each imprisoned for one year; A denies B's admission: B is released and A is imprisoned for five years; A was rejected: A was released and B was imprisoned for five years; A admits B admits: A and B will think of what is best for them when they are imprisoned for three years: as far as A is concerned, if A admits, they will be imprisoned for three years at most, if B also admits; Both sides were imprisoned for three years; If B denies it, A will be free immediately. This result is not bad. This is a game, and B will think so. If A changes his mind, he will be imprisoned for five years and B will be free. or vice versa, Dallas to the auditorium If the two sides change their minds and go to jail for one year each, they can also achieve "* * *". However, this decision-making process may be infinite rational reasoning: if I choose the "* * * interest" strategy, I am sure that the other party will also choose the "* * * interest" strategy; If I choose the "selfish" strategy, the other party will also choose the "selfish" strategy to prevent it. This process of "pushing yourself and others, pushing yourself and others" can go on indefinitely. Its limit state is called "* * * CommonKnowledge" in game theory, but no one can reach this state, and prisoners can't get rid of this paradox. (D) Paradoxes caused by the contradiction between name and reality Many classic paradoxes in ancient China were written by famous artists. Famous scholars are a school of thought in the Warring States Period. Their theory lies in the pursuit of fame and responsibility, but the result is often considered sophistry. Famous artists started from Deng, followed by Hui Shi, Gong Sunlong and others. In ancient Greece, Aristotle believed that dialecticians and sophists and philosophers wore the same clothes, but they were not the same thing. For sophistry, wisdom is only superficial. Dialectists include everything in their dialectics, and "reality" is also one of their topics. So dialectics also contains these themes that originally belonged to philosophy. Sophistication and dialectics talk about the same things as philosophy, but philosophy is different from dialectics because of talent, and philosophy is different from sophistry because of the purpose of academic life. Philosophy is critical and dialectical when seeking truth and knowledge; As for sophistry, although it looks like philosophy, it is not philosophy (Chapter 1 of Volume 4 of Metaphysics). Mr. Feng Youlan has a special discussion in Chapter 8 "Famous Scholars" of A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy. In his view, China's "master" is not completely equivalent to a sophist, logician or dialectician in the West. If the dialecticians and sophists in ancient Greece specialized in studying attributes rather than essence, then famous scholars studied the relationship between "name" and "reality", and attaching importance to "name" and neglecting "reality" is their spiritual essence. The "name and reality" here is name and reality. Feng Youlan thinks that China's famous artists should be translated into "Ming School" to show the difference, which is exactly what I read in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The debate about the relationship between name and reality has a great influence on China's philosophy, such as "Confucius has a proper name, Laozi is nameless, and Mozi has a real name dispute". Besides famous scholars, Xunzi also made great contributions to ancient logic. Gong Sunlong's argument is based on the name, and he "repeats the name" without putting it into practice. If you look at his eloquence, you will find some strange problems. It is mentioned in Zhuangzi Qiushui that GongSunLong once boasted: "A hundred schools of thought are hard to know, and a hundred schools of thought are hard to argue".
4- 1 "A white horse is not a horse"
During the Warring States Period, Gong Sunlong, a native of Zhao, wrote Gong Sunlong Zi, which was well received by Ping Yuanjun. His famous propositions are "White Horse is not a horse" and "Debate on Similarities and Differences". It is said that Gong Sunlong once rode through the customs, and the gatekeeper said to him, "According to the law, horses are not allowed to cross." Gong Sunlong replied: "I am riding a white horse, and a white horse is not a horse. This is two different things. " We don't know whether Gong Sunlong's "White Horse" has passed the test. From the point of view of ordinary people, 80% of the soldiers guarding the pass think that Gong Sunlong is sophistry. This is also a logical example of "inability to refute", which cannot be established in reality. Feng Youlan believes that the theory of white horse in Gongsun Zilong proves that white horse is not a horse. One is to emphasize the different connotations of "horse", "white" and "white horse". The connotation of "horse" is animal, the connotation of "white" is color, and the connotation of "white horse" is animal plus color. The three have different connotations, so a white horse is not a horse. The second is to emphasize the difference between "horse" and "white horse" in extension. The extension of "horse" includes all horses, regardless of color differences; The extension of "white horse" only includes white horse, which has color difference. The extension is different, so a white horse is not a horse. The third is to emphasize the difference between the * * phase of "horse" and the * * phase of "white horse". The appearance of a horse is the essential attribute of all horses. Not including color, only including "horse is a horse". * * * Different genders, "when a horse is a horse" and "when a white horse is a white horse" are different. So a white horse is not a horse. As mentioned earlier, dialectics is developed in the process of dealing with sophistry.
answer
Sixth floor
20 1 1-03-27 03:28
Report |
Never leave your heart.
Pest killer
six
Hegel said in Little Logic: "Dialectics must not be confused with simple sophistry. The essence of sophistry is to look at things in isolation and regard their one-sided abstract rules as reliable things. " (Further definition of logical concept and division of departments) From the perspective of dialectics, "white horse is not a horse" cuts off the relationship between individual and general. White horse belongs to personality, especially white horse; Horses are common and have the characteristics of horses of various colors. Gong Sunlong distinguished the difference between the two, but he also made it absolute. Although the color of the white horse is different from other horses, such as the yellow horse and the dark horse mentioned by Gong Sunlong, it is still a horse. As a sex, "horse" as a personality resides in "white horse". As a general category, "horse" includes horses of all colors, and Gong Sunlong's white horse is no exception.
4-2 "Killing thieves is not killing people"
This proposition is similar to "a white horse is not a horse", although the method and purpose of argument are different. Xunzi classified Mo's statement of "killing thieves but not killing people" as a sophistry of "confusing names". Xunzi believes that the category of "person" includes the category of "thief" in extension. So when we say "thief", that is to say, he is also a "person"; Killing a thief is also killing.
4-3 Jian Baishi Theory
Hard white stone theory refers to a kind of "hard white stone", which consists of three elements: hard, white and stone. Gong Sunlong advocated "firmness" as the characteristic of stone and "white" as the color of stone. The stone seen by the eyes is white, and the stone touched by the hand knows that it is hard; White comes from vision, hard comes from touch, and hard and white cannot be recognized at the same time. Therefore, Gong Sunlong believes that as far as a hard white stone is concerned, it is impossible for people to recognize the three elements of hard, white and stone, but only hard stone or white stone. This is to prove that firmness and whiteness are separated from each other from the perspective of perception, and it is an early application of analytical methods. "Debate on White" is a famous proposition in ancient China, which is not accepted by people, but it is impossible for famous scholars to raise these profound questions without careful consideration. Although famous experts are invincible in logical debate, they are opposed by many scholars. Zhuangzi said: "Decorating and changing people's hearts can win people's hearts, but they can't convince them. This is also the embarrassment of debaters." Xunzi also said: "Although arguing, the gentleman will not listen." This is indeed a paradox of famous artists. China was famous for its argumentative logic in ancient times, and it was introduced to India in the Tang Dynasty. In modern times, western logic was introduced and became the intersection of the three major logics in the world. Hegel said in Little Logic: "When it comes to sophistry, we always think that it is just a way of thinking that distorts justice and truth and expresses things with absurd views. But this is not the direct tendency of sophistry. The original view of the sophists is nothing more than a' rational argument' view. " This is for the ancient Greeks, and it is also suitable for China's famous artists.
The reference comes from /p/ 1035637075.