Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
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...
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.
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:
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.
