4

Confuzius started the fight against the sophists back then. After his death other sophists like Kung-sun Lung came and stated things like:

"The shadow of a flying bird doesn't move."

Ok, this sounds like Zenon's flying arrow argument so can follow that. Further he says that:

"A white horse isn't a horse."

Ok I found this one here, but what does:

"A brown horse and a dark ox are three together."

mean? An orginal reference or a standalone deduction of these hair-splitting logics would be nice...

  • 2
    Contextual information is useful. Do you have any context for the horse & ox question? that is a link to the dialogue where it is found, or a larger extract. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 2 '14 at 1:25
  • 1
    Further information, including whether Kung-sun Lung was fond of opium, would be useful. – Michael Jan 2 '14 at 5:39
  • It seems possible together is overloaded here a bit semantically, meaning also 'together with the relation between the two'; the fact that the two elements are together together (i.e., individuals plus the set they form). --This is my suspicion, anyway, that the translation gap makes this a bit complex. – Joseph Weissman Jan 3 '14 at 0:20
1

I take "a brown horse and a dark ox are three" in an ontological sense. If you have a brown horse and a dark ox you have three things:

  • Dark; hence light. Without light there would be no need for a word for dark.

  • A horse; hence Animals; hence living things;

  • The color brown; hence colors; hence a conscious observer who can see light and give names to particular frequencies like brown.

If you grant me a brown horse and a dark ox you grant me three of the most important things in the universe: Electromagnetic radiation; life; and consciousness.

  • Nice, since the white horse example goes along similar lines, I'll accept your answer... – draks ... Jan 7 '14 at 9:07
6

Since you said a standalone deduction is fine, I'll offer what I think might work having extrapolated the sort of reasoning used in the second one.

The way "a brown horse and a dark ox" might be "three together" is this:

  1. A brown horse;
  2. A dark ox;
  3. A brown horse and a dark ox.

That is, each animal is itself one object, and then the two of them together is a distinct third object. This seems in tune with how "a white horse isn't a horse."

The sentence itself plays out like so: A brown horse (1) and a dark ox (2) are three together [brown horse + dark ox] (3).

Of course, as I said this is only my own interpretation and I have no references save for the similarity this reasoning bears to that used for your second example.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.