A Critique of A. C. Graham's Reconstruction of the "Neo-Mohist Canons"

Abstract

A. C. Graham's Later Mohist Logic, Ethics, and Sciences (1978) is the only Western-language translation of the obscure and textually corrupt chapters of the Mozi that purportedly constitute the foundations of ancient Chinese logic. Graham's presentation and interpretation of this difficult material has been largely accepted by scholars. This article questions the soundness of Graham's reconstruction of these chapters (the so-called "Neo-Mohist Canons"). Upon close examination, problems are revealed in both the structure and the content of the framework Graham uses to interpret the Canons. Without a more reliable framework for interpreting the text, it seems best to remain skeptical about claims that the Canons represent evidence for the study of logic in early China. THE NEO-MOHIST CANONS ARE COMMONLY thought to be the closest thing to logic in ancient China. A. C. Graham's reconstruction of this almost unintelligible text has been hailed as "the single most important study on Chinese logic ever published."' Graham suggests that the Canons also contain the germs of Chinese science, destined to be undeveloped due to poor preservation of this text. Sinologists have used Graham's reconstruction not only to understand Neo-Mohist logic and science, but also to elucidate methods of argumentation and technical terminology throughout ancient China. This article questions whether we can in fact rely on Graham's reconstruction. According to Graham, an "organizing principle must be identified if the items [in the Canons] are to be read in context."2 But the organizing principle Graham selects for reconstructing the text is questionable. The organizing principle determines the order and the themes that provide the context for interpretation. If it is called into question, we lack the necessary context for interpreting the Canons. Given the countless questions about line-breaks and emendations of characters in the Canons, it is by no means easy to determine, on a case-by-case basis for each Canon, whether it is possible to reject Graham's organizing principle for the Canons as a whole but still to retain his translation (or even, in many cases, his deci-1 In the biographical note on Graham in Epistemological Issues in Classical Chinese Philosophy, ed. Hans Lenk and

Names, Cranes, and the Later Moists

“…32 Geaney objects to the claim that expensive/cheap is an absolute distinction, saying it conflicts with the view that it is relative whether one has a wealthy household. 33 But the Later Moists are talking specifically about whether something's price is appropriate, and thus, whether it is too expensive or too cheap, and it is a clear consequence of Canon B30 that each thing has a fixed, appropriate price. Whether it is expensive or cheap compared with other things may be relative, but whether it is expensive or cheap compared with its appropriate price is not.…”