Argumentation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9463-0 ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation Minghui Xiong1,2,4   · Linqiong Yan1,2,3

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract Mencius, the second sage of Confucianism after Confucius, is well known for his subtle argumentative skills. Mencius did not develop his own argumentation theory, but argumentation practices, including his political argumentation, have enormously inspired later scholars in China to develop argumentation theories. In this paper, we try to reconstruct Mencius’s political argumentation from perspectives of both strategic maneuvering developed by van Eemeren et  al. in argumentation theory and truth-functional logic in formal logic. The aim is to manifest the Dao, a rational balance among logical, dialectical and rhetorical dimensions in Mencius’s political argumentation. The results indicate that Mencius’s political argumentation is not only logically justified but also shown to have maneuvered strategically between reasonableness and effectiveness, and that human beings have a common ground of formal and substantial logos, which makes it possible for people from different cultural groups to communicate rationally. Keywords  Confucianism · Mencius · Political argumentation · Strategic maneuvering · Truth-functional logic

* Minghui Xiong [email protected] 1

Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 Xingang West Road, Guangzhou 510275, People’s Republic of China

2

Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 Xingang West Road, Guangzhou 510275, People’s Republic of China

3

School of Foreign Languages, Jiangsu University, 301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang 212013, People’s Republic of China

4

Institute of Reasoning, Argumentation and Communication, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, 555 Liutai Avenue, Chengdu 611130, People’s Republic of China



13

Vol.:(0123456789)



M. Xiong, L. Yan

1 Introduction Mencius (around 372 BC–289 BC), a Confucian philosopher in ancient China, is often referred to as “the second sage” of Confucianism, meaning second in importance only to Confucius.1 The word “Mencius” is a Latinization of the Chinese “Mengzi”, coined by Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century, meaning “Master Meng”. His real full name was Meng Ke in Pinyin. Mencius is best known for his philosophical standpoint that everyone is always inclined to goodness in nature. The opposing standpoint is that everyone is always inclined to badness in nature, which is claimed by Xun Kuang, an important Confucian philosopher, a little later. According to Van Norden (2014), Mencius has attracted scholars’ interest in modern Western philosophy because there are not only intriguing similarities with but also provocative differences from Humean and Aristotelian formulations in his views on virtues, ethical cultivation and human nature. Unlike Micius,2 Mencius was not an argumentation theorist but an argumentation practitioner for his reputation of being argumentative. Gongduzi, one of his disciples, asked him, “Outsiders all say that you are argumentative. I venture to ask why?” Mencius answered, “How should I be argumentative? I am compelled to do it.” Reasons are given as follows: “I want to correct people’s minds, to stop deviant speech, to resist perverse actions, to banish licentious words, and so to carry on the work of Three (Confucian) Sages.3 In what way am I argumentative? I am compelled to do it.” Besides, he also tried to inherit and carry forward Confucius’s thoughts, “Whoever can resist Yang Zhu4 and Micius with words is a follower of Confucius” (Mencius 2011, pp. 118–119; Mencius 2009, p. 68). Thus, Mencius’s goal in life is to act as a faithful follower of Confucius. Throughout his life, he indeed did so, and as a result, he won the honor of “the second sage” in the Confucian school. 1   Confucius (around 551 BC–around 479 BC) was a thinker, political figure, educator, and founder of the Ru School of Chinese thought, i.e. Confucianism. There have been three sages in ancient China, who are Zhou Gong (called “Yuan Sheng” in Pinyin or the pre-sage), Confucius (called “Zhi Sheng” or the first sage) and Mencius (called “Ya Sheng” or the second sage). Confucius’s teachings, preserved in Lunyu or Analects, form the foundation of much of subsequent Chinese speculation on education and comportment of an ideal man, on how such an individual should live his life and interact with others, and on the forms of society and government in which he should participate. Fung Yu-lan (1895–1990), one of the twentieth century great authorities on the history of Chinese thought, compares Confucius’s influence in Chinese history with that of Socrates in the West. 2   Micius (around 468 BC–376 BC), also known as Mozi, Mo Di or Mo Tse, is the founder of Mohism and a famous thinker, educator, scientist, strategist and argumentation theorist (even logician) in the Warring States period. The works on his argumentation theory is the first part, which is normally called the Mohist Canons or the Mohist Argumentation Theory, of the Micius compiled by Micius’s disciples and followers. 3   The Three Sages in the eyes of Mencius, different from those in Confucius’s eyes, refer to Da Yu, Zhou Gong and Confucius. Da Yu, the ideal emperor praised highly by Zhou Gong and Confucius, was the first king of Xia dynasty (about the twenty-first century BC–the sixteenth century BC), which is the first hereditary dynasty in the history of China. Zhou Gong (or Duke Zhou) was an outstanding statesman, strategist, thinker and educator in the early Western Zhou dynasty (1046 BC–771 BC) and regarded as pre-sage, meaning the pioneer of Confucianism. 4   Yang Zhu (395 BC–335 BC) was a great thinker and philosopher in the early Warring States period and the founder of the Yangzhu School of Taoism.

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

Another reason why Mencius was argumentative is that he, like Zhou Gong (or Duke Zhou) and Confucius, had a strong sense of social responsibility. The most representative is that, based on Confucius’s doctrine of humaneness, he put forward the thought of humane governance. Besides that, he devoted his life to convincing his intended audiences - kings such as King Hui of Liang and King Xuan of Qi, and dukes such as Teng Wen Gong, to accept his basic political standpoint about humane policy and to promote humane governance, i.e. Renzheng. Mencius was partly successful in that because he was greatly respected by his intended audiences, including King Hui of Liang, King Xuan of Qi and Teng Wen Gong. As the most influential thought in ancient China, Confucianism has been prevailing for over two thousand years since periodEmperor Wu of Han (ruling from 141 BC–87 BC), the seventh emperor of Western Han dynasty (206 BC–8 AD), began to promote the Confucian doctrines in 134 BC. We argue that the dominant status of Confucianism lies not just in some historical or political factors, but also in its own acceptability. Since Mencius has been recognized as one of the greatest advocates and defenders of Confucianism, his importance cannot be ignored in justifying and making acceptable Confucianism. Therefore, in this paper, by reconstructing Mencius’s political argumentation with both the theory of strategic maneuvering proposed by van Eemeren (2010) and the rules of truth-functional logic, we attempt to illustrate Mencius’s skillfulness in justifying his Confucian ideas. We assume: (1) that Mencius’s argumentation can be proved not only dialectically reasonable and rhetorically effective in terms of strategic maneuvering, but also logically valid based on truth-functional logic, and (2) that Mencius’s skillful argumentation may indicate that before over two thousand and five hundred years ancient China did have developed full-fledged argumentation practices and strategies, which may have and will shed some light on the further development of argumentation theories in China. For this end, Sect.  2 introduces Mencius’s thought of humane governance, which is the core issue to be dealt with in his political argumentation. Section 3 is about argument schemes employed by Mencius. Section  4 analyses strategic maneuvering embedded in the given examples from dimensions of topical potential, audience demand and presentational device. Such analyses cover the dialectical and rhetorical dimensions in Mencius’s political argumentation. Section 5 touches the logical justification or the Dao of Mencius’s argumentation by structualizing the informal arguments in the given examples. Section 6 concludes that Mencius achieves a rational balance among logical, dialectical and rhetorical dimensions in his political argumentation on human governance.

2 Mencius on Humane Governance In Mencius’s political argumentation, his ultimate purpose is to convince his intended audiences to promote humane governance. This section intends to provide some background information about the core issue of humane governance in Mencius’s political argumentation. The thought of humane governance, developed by Mencius on the basis of Confucius’s doctrine of humaneness, had become the

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

rulers’ leading ideology during several later dynasties, especially since the Western Han dynasty. The thought consists of two basic ideas. The first is that the people are more important than their king. Mencius said, “The people are the most important elements in a kingdom; the spirits of the land and grain are the next; His Majesty is the slightest. Therefore, to gain the people is the way to become a king” (Mencius 2011,  pp. 274–275; Mencius 2009,  p. 159). This is the core idea as well as the political foundation of humane governance that Mencius wanted to promote. It has greatly influenced later leading thoughts. Mencius justified this standpoint by appealing to the precedents. He said, for example, King Jie of Xia’s5 and King Zhou of Shang’s6 losing their kingdoms, arose from their losing the people, and losing the people means losing their support. There is a way to get the kingdom - to get the people, and the kingdom is got. There is a way to get the people - to get the people’s support, and the people are got. There is a way to get the people’s support - simply to collect for them what they like and not to lay on them what they dislike (Mencius 2011,  pp. 133 - 134; Mencius 2009, pp. 78 - 79). The second is that everyone is inclined to goodness in nature. To a king, this idea is the ethical foundation of humane governance. For one thing, according to Mencius, “Everyone has a feeling which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others” (Mencius 2011, pp. 59–60; Mencius 2009, p. 35), because “If men suddenly see a child going to fall into a well they will without exception experience feelings of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favor of the child’s parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbors and friends, nor from a dislike of the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing” (ibid). For another, any king could practice humane governance, because “The ancient kings had this commiserating feeling, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government. When with a commiserating feeling one practiced a commiserating government, the government of the empire would be as easy a matter as making any thing go around in the palm” (ibid). As the core thought of Confucianism, the Five Constants (5Cs), called Wuchang in Pinyin, refer to the five constant virtues as follows: (1) Ren or humaneness; (2) Yi or righteousness; (3) Li or proper rite (or propriety); (4) Zhi or intelligence (or knowledge), and (5) Xin or sincerity.7 The first four constitute the ethical foundation of Mencius’s political argumentation (Fig. 1).

5

  Jie, called Xia Jie or King Jie of Xia, was the last king of Xia dynasty (around the 21st century BC the 16th century BC). He, who reigned from 1652 BC to 1600 BC, was a tyrant in the history of China. 6   Zhou, called Shang Zhou or King Zhou of Shang, was the last king of Shang dynasty (around 1600 BC - around 1046 BC). He reigned from 1105 BC to 1045 BC. 7   The formation of the 5Cs in Confucianism, however, is a continual process of development after Confucius. Confucius proposed the first three virtues. Mencius added Zhi (knowledge) to Confucius’s framework, and in the Western Han dynasty, Tung Chungshu put Xin (sincerity) into Mencius’s framework. Tung Chungshu or Dong Zhong Shu (179 BC–104 BC) was one representative of Confucianism in the Western Han dynasty. He is traditionally associated with the promotion of Confucianism as the official ideology of the Chinese imperial state.

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation Fig. 1  Five Constants (5Cs) (This picture is taken from Baidu and slightly modified.)

According to Mencius, everyone has four feelings (4Fs). He said, The feeling of commiseration belongs to everyone; so does that of shame and dislike, and that of reverence and respect, and that of approving and disapproving (Mencius 2011, pp. 211–212; Mencius 2009, p. 124). The relationship between the 4Fs and the first four of the 5Cs is as follows: The feeling of commiseration implies the principle of humaneness; that of shame and dislike, the principle of righteousness; that of reverence and respect, the principle of propriety, and that of approving and disapproving, the principle of intelligence (ibid). Among the first four of the 5Cs, humaneness and righteousness are the two most important moral categories of Confucianism. Humaneness means that everyone should help those in need, and righteousness means that everyone should share happiness with others. Mencius especially praised these two concepts.8 He regarded humaneness and righteousness as the highest pursuits in life. “When humaneness is the dwelling-place of the mind, and righteousness the path of the life, the business of a great man is complete” (Mencius 2011, p. 262). Mencius especially emphasized that the principles of humaneness and righteousness were significant for one’s behavior choice: “In any matter contrary to righteousness which they prescribed, or contrary to their principle, he would neither have given nor taken a single straw” (Mencius 2011, pp. 180–181). As to humaneness, according to Mencius, “A humane person always loves others” (Mencius 2011, pp. 157–158; Mencius 2009, p. 92). It is manifested in the affection one has for his or her own kin, as well as in the compassion for the sufferings of other humans, and even in the concern for the non-human. Humaneness, mentioned 109 times in Analects, is the first basic concept of Confucianism. Confucius said, 8   Tung Chungshu regarded humaneness and righteousness as the highest standard of Chinese traditional morality. After Song dynasty (960–1276), humaneness and righteousness had become another name for Chinese traditional morality, and led to a term Ren Yi Dao De in Pinyin, meaning “the principle of humaneness and righteousness”.

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

“Humaneness is the characteristic element of humanity, and the great exercise of it is in loving relatives” (Zisi 2011, p. 37). Confucius listed a lot of examples of humaneness. For example, when Yan Yuan, one of his disciples, asked Confucius what humaneness is, he answered, “It constitutes humaneness to return to the observance of the rites by overcoming the self. One day, once someone could return to the observance of the rites through overcoming himself, the entire world would consider humaneness to be his. However, the practice of humaneness depends on oneself alone, and not on others” (Confucius 2008, p. 202). When Zhonggong, another one of his disciples, asked Confucius about humaneness, he said, “When abroad you behave as though you were receiving an important guest. When employing the services of the common people you behave as though you were officiating at an important sacrifice. Don’t impose on others what you yourself do not desire for. In this way, you will be free from ill will whether in a state or in a noble family” (ibid). When Sima Niu, also his disciple, asked about humaneness, he answered, “The mark of a humane man is that he is loath to speak” (Confucius 2008, p. 204). As to righteousness, Confucius said, “Righteousness is the accordance of actions with what is righteous, and the great exercise of it is in honoring the worthy” (Zisi 2011,  p. 37). In other words, righteousness is a disposition to disdain or regard as shameful the dishonorable behavior or demeaning treatment. Confucius talked more about the importance of righteousness. For example, “Seeing what ought to be done, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage” (Confucius 2008, p. 28). When his disciple Zilu asked Confucius whether a gentleman should consider courage to be supreme, Confucius answered, “For a gentleman, it is righteousness that should be considered supreme. Possessed with courage but devoid of righteousness, a gentleman will make trouble while a snob will be brigand” (ibid). Humaneness, together with righteousness, constitutes the core in the ethical foundation of Mencius’s humane governance. According to Mencius, “In a kingdom, if the king is humane, all will be humane; if the king is righteous, then all of his people will be righteous” (Mencius 2011, p. 149; Mencius 2009, p. 87). This idea corresponds with a saying in Chinese that when those above behave unworthily those below will do the same. In a word, both humaneness and righteousness are equally important for Mencius’s thought of humane governance, although he had never employed such a term as “humane and righteous governance”.

3 Argument Schemes Used by Mencius To grasp the argument scheme is necessary for argumentation analysis and evaluation, so we now go further into three main types of argument scheme used in Mencius’s political argumentation. They are respectively argument from consequences, argument by analogy and argument from authority.

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

3.1 Argument from Consequences Argument from consequences or appeal to consequences is the most important scheme used by Mencius when making his political argumentation. This argument scheme stems from the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentium (literally meaning “argument from consequences”). The Latin term argumentum ad consequentium is used particularly to refer to a fallacy, while the English term “argumentum ad consequentium” is used to refer to an argument which may not necessarily be fallacious. As a scheme of argumentation, according to Walton, an argument from consequences cites allegedly foreseeable consequence(s) of a proposed action as the premise, and the conclusion is then inferred that this course of action is or is not recommended (Walton 2006, p. 104). This scheme, in Walton’s opinion, can be used in a positive or negative way, as an argument to respond to a proposal that has been put forward when two parties are having a dialogue on what to do. In argument from positive consequences, a policy or course of action is supported by citing positive consequences of carrying out this policy or action. In argument from negative consequences, however, a policy or course of action is argued against by citing negative consequences of carrying it out. The general argument scheme for appealed positive and negative consequences is as follows:                A should (not) be brought about. Because: If A is brought about, good (or bad) consequences will plausibly occur. There are three critical questions asked against this scheme: (1) How strong is the probability or plausibility that these cited consequences will (may, might, must) occur? (2) What evidence, if any, supports the claim that these consequences will (may, might, must) occur if A is brought about? (3) Are there consequences of the opposite value that ought to be taken into account? (Walton 2006, p. 106) These critical questions are especially important to evaluate whether or not the employment of the corresponding argument scheme is reasonable. As this section just introduces the commonly used argument schemes in Mencius’s political argumentation, the evaluation part will not be dealt with here. In formal logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert the truth value of a conclusion (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises. As a matter of fact, this kind of argument refers to arguments that address the consequential desirability (good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, or right or wrong) of the course of action expressed in a premise instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet at present) and abstract ethics. Such argument schemes are

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism. There are two types of appealed consequences - positive and negative. It is the former that is the intended audience’s demand, but in argumentation an arguer may appeal to the latter to make the intended audience accept his/her standpoint. One classic example appealing to negative consequences by Mencius is a dialogue between Mencius and King Hui of Liang in the starting paragraph of the book Mencius. Example 1 King Hui of Liang asked, ‘Venerable Sir, you have not considered a thousand Li9 too far to come here. Surely you have some means to profit my kingdom?’ Mencius answered, ‘Why must Your Majesty speak of profiting your kingdom? I have only teachings concerning humaneness and righteousness. If Your Majesty says, ‘How can I profit my kingdom?’ The officers will say, ‘How can I profit my manor?’ And the common people will say, ‘How can I profit myself?’ If those above and those below should compete with one another for profit, your kingdom will be imperiled’ (Mencius 2011,  pp. 1 - 2; Mencius 2009, p. 1). In this dialogue, Mencius’s basic explicit argument is, (1) If King Hui of Liang speaks of profiting his kingdom, his kingdom will be imperiled; (2) It is not true that he wishes his own kingdom to be imperiled; (3) Therefore, he should not speak of profiting his kingdom. Nobody will doubt the second premise because no king wishes his own kingdom to be imperiled. However, the acceptability of the first premise need be justified by further argumentation because the antecedent is neither necessary nor sufficient for the consequent in it. A famous example appealing to positive consequences, which is written in a Chinese textbook for middle schools, concerns a meeting between Zhuang Pu10 and Mencius in Book II of Mencius. For the sake of the later argumentative analysis, here we first split this text up according to the four stages in the ideal model of a critical discussion developed by van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans (2017,  pp. 20–21). This corresponds exactly with the three critical questions asked against the argument scheme for negative consequences. Example 2 The confrontation stage On seeing Mencius, Zhuang Pu said, ‘When I met King Xuan of Qi he spoke to me of your enjoyment of music. I did not know how to respond What do

9

  Li is the length measuring unit in ancient China. One Li is equal to 500 meters.   Zhuang Pu was the close minister of King Xuan of Qi.

10

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

you think about the enjoyment of music?’ Mencius replied, ‘If King Xuan of Qi truly loved music, the kingdom of Qi would be governed quite well.’ Another day, when Mencius went to see the King, he said, ‘Is it true that Your Majesty told Zhuang you enjoyed music?’ Flushing with embarrassment, the King said, ‘Incapable of enjoying the profane music of antiquity, I only enjoy the popular music of today, nothing more.’ Mencius said, ‘If you truly loved music, the kingdom of Qi would be governed quite well, for the popular music of today is just like the profane music of antiquity.’ The opening stage The King said, ‘Would you explain to me what you mean by that?’ Mencius asked, ‘Which is more pleasurable - enjoying music by oneself or enjoying it in the company of others?’ The King answered, ‘Enjoying it with others.’ Mencius asked, ‘Which is more pleasurable - enjoying it in the company of a few or enjoying it in the company of many?’ The King answered, ‘Enjoying it with many.’ The argumentation stage Mencius said, ‘Then, with your permission, I would like to speak to you about music. Now suppose Your Majesty is making music here. Hearing the echoes of Your Majesty’s bells and drums and the sounds of your pipes and flutes, the people, with aching heads and furrowed brows, all ask one another, ‘Why should our king’s fondness of music make life so hard for us? Fathers and sons cannot see each other; older and younger brothers, wives and children are separated and scattered.’ Now suppose Your Majesty is going hunting. Hearing Your Majesty’s chariots and horses and seeing the beauty of the plumage and banners, the people, with aching heads and furrowed brows, all ask one another, ‘Why should our king’s fondness of hunting make life so hard for us? Fathers and sons cannot see each other; older and younger brothers, wives and children are separated and scattered.’ This is solely because he does not share his enjoyment with the people. Now suppose Your Majesty is making music here. Hearing the echoes of Your Majesty’s bells and drums and the sounds of your pipes and flutes, the people, joyfully and with delighted countenances, all tell one another, ‘Our king must be quite free of illness, for if he were ill, how would he be able to make music?’ Now suppose Your Majesty is going hunting here. Hearing Your Majesty’s carriages and horses and seeing the beauty of the plumage and banners, the people, joyfully and with delighted countenances, all tell one another, ‘Our king must be quite free of illness, for if he were ill, how would he be able to go hunting?’ This is solely because he shares his enjoyment with the people.’ The concluding stage ‘Now, if Your Majesty simply will share your enjoyment with the people, you shall be a true king’ (Mencius 2011, pp. 20 - 22; Mencius 2009, pp. 13 - 14). In this dialogue, Mencius’s basic argument is that (1) If King Xuan of Qi loves music, he will be a true king;

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

(2) King Xuan of Qi loves music; (3) Therefore, King Xuan of Qi will be a true king. According to pragma-dialectics, here the difference of opinion between Mencius and King Xuan of Qi belongs to the simple type because the King does not present his own standpoint but only expresses his doubt against Mencius’s standpoint that the kingdom of Qi will be done quite well if it is true that he loves music. Mencius’s argumentative obligation is to justify the sufficient condition of the first premise, because, according to King Xuan of Qi, only if a king loves music of the ancient sovereigns, can he be a true king. Of course, Mencius totally agrees with King Xuan of Qi on this point, for the sovereigns whom they refer to are just those like Yao,11 Shun12 and Yu,13 who were praised highly by Confucians. However, what King Xuan of Qi loves is the music of the day, but to Mencius, the kind of music is not the point here. The key point is whether a king can share his enjoyment with his people, no matter the profane or popular music he likes. The conclusion that King Xuan of Qi will be a true king is made here by appealing to the positive consequences that a king who truly loves music will share his enjoyment with his people. Thus, we can see that appeal to consequences, negative or positive, is one of the important strategies employed in Mencius’s political argumentation. 3.2 Argument by Analogy Analogy, Tuilei or Leitui in Pinyin,14 is a very common argument scheme used in Mencius. In a narrow sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another. In Chinese philosophy, there are at least two types of analogy: one is inference from individual to individual and the other is inference from class to class. The former is the equivalent of the narrow analogy while the latter is equal to Tuiei, also called as an inference from general to general. According to Zhang Dongsun (1886–1973), a syllogism, which Chinese people have not employed, is the leading reasoning of the western traditional logic, while analogy is the most favorite form of reasoning in China (Jin 2014). In the history of logic, according to Cui Qingtian, “There are three different logical traditions Greek, Indian and Chinese. Syllogism is the core of Greek logic, parārthānumānam (Stecherbatsky 2011, p. 275) or syllogism of Indian logic, analogy of Chinese logic” (Cui 2004,  p. 137). This idea has been very popular in Chinese logic community since the 1990s (Jin 2014). According to Wen Gongyi (1904–1996), Chinese logic

11

  Yao (about 2377 BC–2259 BC), one of the Five Emperors, was a leader of the union of tribes in ancient China. 12   Shun (about 2277 BC–2176 BC), one of the Five Emperors, was a leader of the union of tribes in ancient China. 13   Yu, is sometimes also addressed as Da Yu in Mencius. 14   Analogy, in which an inference is made on the basis of similarity between two compared objects, has been regarded as the most important scheme of reasoning in ancient China.

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

is not focused in form, but pays attention to the substantive research of thoughts, so that it avoids the complexity of Western logic and Indian logic (Wen 1983, p. 83). Comparability between objects is the starting point of analogy. Therefore, similarity in nature between different classes of objects is the foundation of argument by analogy. The more solid this foundation is, the stronger its probative and persuasive force is. Comparing a government to a stick and a knife, for example, Mencius concluded that killing a person through tyrannical rules is like doing that with a stick or a knife. The foundation of similarity among a government, a stick and a knife is very solid, so that this conclusion is acceptable. Mencius also thought that a king’s levying a tax higher than the standard in Zhou dynasty is like someone stealing his neighbor’s chicken. As a result, the conclusion he made by analogy is that it is not righteous for a king to levy a tax higher than the standard in Zhou dynasty, although it might be lower than before. It is not difficult to find this kind of argument scheme based on analogy in Mencius. According to Liu (2017), analogy is one of the most important rhetorical strategies for Mencius to conduct argumentation. Arguments by analogy used by Mencius include three subtypes, namely, analogy by metaphor, by comparison and by model. First, analogy by metaphor is Mencius’s most favorite argument scheme. “As Zhao Qi15 said, ‘Mencius is very good at making arguments by metaphor. His words seem not to be aggressive but their implications can be understood by the intended audience’ ” (Jin and Yu 2014, p. 125). According to Li Bingying’s statistics, “The works of Mencius has a total of 261 sections, in which 93 sections have used 159 metaphors” (ibid). Through arguments by metaphor, Mencius translated abstract truths into concrete and vivid images so that his argumentation sounds vivid and convincing. One example is that King Hui of Liang asked Mencius why his people did not increase while the people of his neighboring kingdoms did not decrease, although he did have exerted his mind to the utmost compared with his neighboring kings. Another example is the a famous dialogue about the pot calling the kettle black. Example 3 Mencius asked, ‘Your Majesty is fond of war. Please allow me to use a metaphor of war. All soldiers move forward to the sound of the drums; then after their weapons have been crossed, on one side soldiers throw away their coatsof-mail, trail their arms behind them, and run. Some run one hundred paces and stop, while some others run fifty paces and stop. What would you think if those who run fifty paces were to laugh at those who run one hundred paces?’ King Hui of Liang answered, ‘They may not do so. It was only that they did not run one hundred paces, but they also ran away.’ Mencius replied, ‘Since Your Majesty knows this truth, you need not hope that your people will become more numerous than those of your neighboring kingdoms’ (Mencius 2011, pp. 3–5; Mencius 2009, p. 3).

15   Zhao Qi (around 108 AD–201 AD) was a Confucian who studied Confucian classics in Eastern Han dynasty.

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

Then Mencius started to make his political argumentation about the kingcraft. Second, analogy by comparison is also one of Mencius’s favored argument schemes. The difference between arguments by metaphor and by comparison is that a conclusion made by the former is normally implicit and often followed by subsequent arguments, while the conclusion made by the latter is very clear without any more arguments. Let’s look at an example of analogy by comparison. Example 4 “Mencius asked, ‘Suppose that one of Your Majesty’s ministers entrusted his wife and children to the care of his friend, while he himself went to travel. On his return, he found that the friend should have caused his wife and children to suffer from cold and hunger. How ought the minister to deal with the friend?’ The King answered, ‘He should cast him off.’ Mencius asked, ‘Suppose that the chief criminal judge could not regulate the officers under him. In your opinion, how to deal with him?’ The King answered, ‘Dismiss him.’ Mencius asked, ‘If within the borders of your kingdom there is no good governance, what is to be done?’ The King looked to the right and left, and spoke of other matters” (Mencius 2011, p. 31; Mencius 2009, p. 6). The King had to avoid this topic because it was so easy for him to conclude that his own throne should be abolished. So it is obvious that this conclusion is not what the King wishes to be drawn by Mencius. Here anyone can directly infer by comparison this conclusion. The last main type of analogy employed by Mencius is analogy from model. Mencius’s king models are always Yao, Shun and Yu (i.e. Da Yu mentioned earlier). In Mencius, Yu is mentioned 119 times, Shun 101 times, and Yao 61 times. Especially, Yao together with Shun, called “Yao-Shun”, is mentioned 27 times. Not only so, the Dao of Yao-Shun, referring to the strategy of running a kingdom like Yao and Shun, is mentioned 11 times in Mencius. Mencius regarded Yao and Shun as the ideal kings that every king should follow. Yao and Shun, as historical figures, are praised both in The Analects of Confucius and The Doctrine of the Mean. Yao is the moral model of a king while Shun of a filial son. Mencius said, “After the death of Yao and Shun, the principles that mark sages fell into decay” (Mencius 2011, pp. 118–120; Mencius 2009, p. 69). Argument by analogy is the most popular argument scheme which most of ancient Chinese thinkers including Mencius loved employing. According to van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans (2017, p. 87), its general scheme is:                Y is true of X, because: Y is true of Z, and:         Z is comparable to X. The general critical question to ask about this kind of scheme is: • Are there any significant differences between Z and X?

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

Of course, argument by analogy has been criticized because in many arguments, Mencius could not answer the above critical question. In ancient Chinese thoughts, the well-known basic principle of analogy is that only two similar classes can be analogized. Otherwise, according to Micius, two dissimilar classes could not be analogized because there exist two different measuring standards between them (Micius 2011, pp. 20–21). Mencius agreed to this principle. Example 5 After the Yan kingdom was conquered, the people of Yan rebelled. King Xuan of Qi said, ‘I feel very much ashamed when I think of Mencius.’ Chen Jia (the officer of the Qi kingdom) said, ‘Let not Your Majesty be grieved. Whom does Your Majesty consider, yourself or Zhou Gong, more humane and wiser?’ The King replied, ‘Oh! What words are those?’ Chen Jia said, ‘Zhou Gong appointed Guan Shu to oversee the heir of the Yin kingdom, but Guan Shu with the power of the Yin kingdom rebelled. If knowing that this would happen when Zhou Gong appointed him, Zhou Gong was deficient in humaneness. If Zhou Gong appointed him not knowing that this would happen, Zhou Gong was deficient in knowledge. If Zhou Gong was not completely inhumane and unwise, how much less can Your Majesty be expected to be so? I beg to visit Mencius, and relieve Your Majesty from the feeling of guilt.’ Chen Jia accordingly saw Mencius, and asked him, ‘What kind of man was Zhou Gong?’ Mencius replied, ‘An ancient sage.’ Chen Jia asked, ‘Is it because he appointed Guan Shu to oversee the heir of the Yin kingdom while Guan Shu with the power of the Yin kingdom rebelled?’ Mencius answered, ‘Yes, it is.’ Chen Jia asked, ‘Did Zhou Gong know that Guan Shu would rebel, and purposely appoint him that office?’ Mencius answered, ‘He did not know.’ Chen Jia asked, ‘Then, though a sage, he still fell into error?’ Mencius said, ‘Zhou Gong was the younger brother. Guan Shu was his elder brother. Was not the error of Zhou Gong in accordance with what is right? Moreover, when the superior men of old days had errors, they reformed them. The superior men of the present time, when they have errors, persist in them. The errors of the superior men of old days were like eclipses of the sun and the moon. All the people witnessed them. When the superior men of old days had reformed their errors, all the people looked up to them with their former admiration. But do the superior men of the present day only persist in their errors? No, they even go on to make excuses for them’ (Mencius 2011, pp. 77 - 78; Mencius 2009, pp. 44 - 45). It is interesting in this example that King Xuan of Qi seemed deeply influenced by Mencius. There are two supporting reasons: first, when the Yan kingdom he had conquered rebelled, he felt guilty of not following Mencius; second, he thought he could not compare himself with Zhou Gong, one of the three sages

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

praised by Mencius. Mencius obviously agreed with the King on this point because he thought the superior men of the present day were not analogical to the superior men of antiquity, for an analogy cannot be based on two dissimilar or different classes. Mencius frequently criticized others for their making the fallacy of unknown analogical classes, but he himself was also often criticized for making the same fallacy, like that in this example. 3.3 Argument from Authority Argument from authority, also called “appeal to authority”, is a scheme of defeasible argument in which expert opinions support the conclusion in the arguments. Although it is most often used in a cogent form, once abused, there would appear a well-known fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam. Again the Latin term is usually used to refer to a fallacious use, while the corresponding English term “argument from authority” in a neutral manner. Arguers can avoid being fallacious when they agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. The authorities to which Mencius appeal include authoritative experts and classics, which are very limited. The quoted authoritative experts are Confucians, especially the three sages, i.e., Da Yu, Zhou Gong and Confucius. Da Yu is mentioned 119 times in Mencius, Zhou Gong 19 times and Confucius 81 times. Mencius also cited some words of Confucius’s favorite disciples such as Zi Si (483 BC–402 BC, Confucius’s grandson), Zi Gong (520 BC–456 BC), Zeng Zi (525 BC–435 BC) and so on. Although the wording “Confucius said” appears 22 times in Mencius, not all Confucius’s words cited in Mencius are taken from The Analects of Confucius. Some of them may be taken from the books of Confucius’s disciples like The Doctrine of the Means by Zi Si. In addition, all classics that Mencius cited are such Confucian classics like The She King (27 times) and The Book of History (15 times). Douglas Walton gives the argumentation scheme for appeal to expert opinion and the corresponding critical questions against it. The general scheme is as follows:                A may plausibly be taken to be true (false). Because: E asserts that proposition A (in domain D) is true (false). and:         Source E is an expert in subject domain D containing proposition A. The critical questions matching this scheme are: (1) How credible is E as an expert source? (2) Is E an expert in the field that A is in? (3) What did E assert that implies A? (4) Is E personally reliable as a source? (5) Is A consistent with what other experts assert? (6) Is E’s assertion based on evidence? (Walton 2006, pp. 87–88)

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

In Mencius’s case, all these six questions can be answered positively, for the expert opinions he appeals to are widely accepted not just in Mencius’s time but even today.

4 Mencius’s Strategic Maneuvering According to van Eemeren (2010,  p. 22), the notion of “strategic maneuvering” is “to integrate insight concerning intended effectiveness systematically into the (standard) pragma-dialectical framework of analysis and evaluation”, thus trying to balance on the part of arguers the dialectical reasonableness and the rhetorical effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Strategic maneuvering is manifested in all argumentative moves in three aspects (van Eemeren 2010, pp. 93–94): (1) The selection from topical potential, referring to the choice made from the set of possible argumentative moves that can be made at that point in the discourse; (2) The adaptation to audience demand, meaning the adjustment to the frame of reference and the attitude of the audience that arguers intend to reach, and (3) the exploitation of presentational devices, meaning the utilization of stylistic and other means of expression suitable to serve the purpose. As a famous practitioner of argumentation in ancient China, Mencius had an excellent ability in strategic maneuvering. At the stage of confrontation, Mencius knows exactly what his intended audiences want and what he himself wants. For Mencius, as mentioned above in Sect.  2, his own ultimate purpose is always to persuade his intended kings or dukes to promote humane governance. For an intended king, he has three levels of demand: (1) the lowest level is to keep his throne forever; (2) the higher level is to become a true king, and (3) the even highest level is to conquer the world. Meeting the demands of both himself and his intended audiences is one starting point of Mencius’s political argumentation. However, Mencius never helped a king to satisfy the highest demand because it would be incompatible with righteousness. Normally Mencius’s purpose is to teach the intended kings like King Hui of Liang and King Xuan of Qi the kingcraft to become true kings. The other starting point is the intended audiences’ words or behaviors, which are normally denied in the end by Mencius. Mencius’s demand, together with the intended audiences’ demands reflected in their words or behaviors, determines the set of Mencius’s topical potential. The easier starting point for Mencius’s political argumentation is the intended audiences’ words or behaviors. First, let’s reconstruct Mencius’s strategic maneuvering at the confrontation stage in Example 2 about the positive consequences. After Zhuang Pu told Mencius about King Xuan of Qi’s enjoyment of music, the first topical potential for Mencius is certainly the King’s enjoyment of music. But this is not the end but the beginning of Mencius’s argumentation. Mencius must seek for other topical potentials related to this beginning. For Mencius, his ultimate purpose was to persuade King Xuan of Qi into promoting humane governance. For King Xuan of Qi, his purpose was to make himself a true king. To reach both his own and the King’s purposes, Mencius moved to the argumentation stage and presented his first basic argument as follows:

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

Argument 1 1 King Xuan of Qi will be a true king (T). 1.1 King Xuan of Qi loves music (P). (1.1’) (If King Xuan of Qi loves music (P), he will be a true king (T).) To Mencius, premise 1.1 is obviously acceptable because Zhuang told Mencius about this and the King admitted it to Mencius as well. In premise (1.1’), however, the King’s loving music serves as a sufficient conditional for his becoming a true king. To justify this conditional, Mencius advanced a further argument: Argument 2 (1.1’) (If King Xuan of Qi loves music (P), he will be a true king (T).) 1.1.1 If King Xuan of Qi loves music (P), the kingdom of Qi will be governed quite well (W). (1.1.1’) (If the kingdom of Qi is governed quite well (W), King Xuan of Qi will be a true king (T).) To the King, however, premise 1.1 in Argument 1 was temporarily unacceptable because the music he loved was not the profane music of antiquity but the popular music of the day. So, he flushed with embarrassment. The King’s argument is as follows: Argument 3 1 A king will be a true king (T). 1.1 A king loves the profane music of antiquity (A). (1.1’) If a king loves the profane music of antiquity (A), he will be a true king (T). Mencius does not refuse to accept the King’s argument because he knows that the profane music of antiquity the King talks about just refers to the music that Yao, Shun and Yu loved. As a Confucian, certainly he will not reject promoting things these models love. These things, in Confucians’ opinion, should be followed by the contemporary kings and even by every individual. Then Mencius extends his argument by adding the following premise (1.1.1’) in Argument 4: Argument 4 1 King Xuan of Qi will be a true king (T). 1.1 A king loves the profane music of antiquity (A). (1.1’) If a king loves the profane music of antiquity (A), he will be a true king (T). 1.1.1 King Xuan of Qi loves the popular music of the day (P).

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

(1.1.1’) (King Xuan of Qi loves the popular music of the day (P) if and only if he loves the profane music of antiquity (A).) Why is King Xuan of Qi’s loving the popular music of the day equal to his loving the profane music of antiquity? This is a very interesting question for the King. The King is looking forward to Mencius’s further argumentation. Then the King says to Mencius, “May I listen to your argumentation of that?” Mencius asked, ‘Which is more pleasurable - enjoying music by oneself or enjoying it in the company of others?’ The King answered, ‘Enjoying it with others.’ Mencius asked, ‘Which is more pleasurable - enjoying it in the company of a few or enjoying it in the company of many?’ The King answered, ‘Enjoying it with many’ (Mencius 2011,  pp. 20 - 21; Mencius 2009, p. 13). Through this dialogue, Mencius successfully persuades King Xuan of Qi into accepting the following statements: (1) The King should enjoy music along with others rather than by himself; (2) The King should enjoy music along with many rather than with a few. The idea of having pleasure along with the people is exactly at the core of Mencius’s humane governance. Since the King has accepted the above two statements, he must accept the following basic premise. If King Xuan of Qi loves music (M), he should share his enjoyment with his people (E) (The King’s concession). Back to the previous question puzzling the King, we can see that, according to Mencius, be it the popular music of the day or the profane music of antiquity, what is more important is whether the King can share his enjoyment with his people. Next Mencius starts the main body of his political argumentation for humane governance. Finally, Mencius’s concluding statement is that King Xuan of Qi will be a true king if he shares his enjoyment with the people. The truth is that King Xuan of Qi really wants to be a true king. To meet his demand, according to Mencius, the King has to share his enjoyment with the people. Argument 5 1 Either King Xuan of Qi shares his enjoyment with the people (E) or not ( ¬E). 1.1 If King Xuan of Qi does not share his enjoyment with the people ( ¬E ), the people will not be happy ( ¬H). (1.1a’) (If King Xuan of Qi shares his enjoyment with the people (E), the people will be happy (H).) (1.1b’) (The people will be either happy (H) or not ( ¬H).) Next, let’s reconstruct the argumentation in Example 1 about the negative consequences in the same way as follows:

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

Argument 6 1 The King should speak of Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness (H). (Mencius’s demand) 1.1 The King should not speak of profiting his own kingdom ( ¬K). (1.1’) (The King should speak of either profiting his own kingdom (K) or Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness (H).) 1.1.1a If the King always speaks of profiting his own kingdom (K), his officers will speak of profiting their own manors (M). 1.1.1b If his officers always speak of profiting their own manors (M), the common people will speak of profiting themselves (T). 1.1.1c If his officers speak of profiting their own manors or his common people speak of profiting themselves ( M ∨ T ), the kingdom will be imperiled (I). (1.1.1d) (The King will not wish his own kingdom to be imperiled ( ¬I).) (audience demand) In this argument, we can see that Mencius maneuvers strategically by integrating implicitly the audience demand (1.1.1d) into his argument scheme for negative consequences and thus supporting his claim that “The King should speak of Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness”. It is also possible to reconstruct other argument schemes such as argument from analogy or authority in the same way, but here we will not discuss them.

5 The Dao of Mencius’s Political Argumentation In Chinese philosophy, the term Dao or Tao, originated in Daoism, is a universal concept up to now. According to Combs, Dao has been literally translated as “way” or “path” in the English-speaking world, but contextually it also refers to a skillful, artful or effective method or approach (Combs 2006, p. 23). However, in our opinion, Comb’s interpretation is misleading, because Laozi, the father of Daoism, said, “Dao that can be talked about is not an Eternal Dao” (Laozi 1999, p. 2). It means that Dao can be distinguished into two types - eternal and non-eternal. The meaning of Dao is very close to logos, especially its logical meaning. The Dao of Mencius’s political argumentation mainly refers to a rational balance among logical, dialectical and rhetorical justifications. Besides logical justification, Mencius, as an argumentation practitioner, must find a balance between reasonableness and effectiveness. According to van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans (2017, p. 136), advancing argumentation to resolve a difference of opinion always involves an appeal to dialectical reasonableness, because it means trying to resolve the difference of opinion on the merits. However, the arguers are not just demonstrating the reasonableness of their argumentative moves but simultaneously aiming at making them successful through their convincingness. In other words, the strategic combination of aiming for rhetorical effectiveness and maintaining dialectical reasonableness is characteristic of all argumentative moves that are

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation

Fig. 2  Obligations in persuasion dialogue (Walton 2008, p. 5)

made. In reconciling reasonableness and effectiveness, Mencius indeed did lots of pretty good jobs. Among the three main types of argument scheme mentioned in Sect. 3, the best reconciliation between reasonableness and effectiveness made by Mencius is the employment of argument from consequences. The preliminary analyses on Examples 1 and 2 have also displayed their effectiveness of Mencius’s arguments from negative and positive consequences respectively. Further analyses on these two examples by means of modern truth-functional logic will show their reasonableness in this section as well. Although Mencius certainly did not know the Stoic logic in ancient Greek, not to mention the truth-functional logic of the later ages, he was skillful at marshalling these basic inference rules of propositional logic in his arguments from consequences, like modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, dilemma, etc. Let’s start to reconstruct the relatively simple argument in Example 1 by making use of truth-functional logic. For that purpose, we must reconstruct its informal argument first. In Informal Argument 1, Mencius deduces his own political standpoint from the demand of King Xuan of Qi so that the King is unable to respond to his argument. This argumentative strategy is very consistent with Walton’s framework on internal proof, in which the conclusion of one participant’s argument is inferred from the other participant’s concession in the persuasion dialogue (see Fig. 2). Informal Argument 1 (1) King Hui of Liang should speak of Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness (H). (Mencius’s implicit demand)

(2) King Hui of Liang will not wish his own kingdom to be imperiled ( ¬I ). (The King’s implicit demand)

(3) King Hui of Liang should either speak of profiting his own kingdom (K) or Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness (H). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

(4) If King Hui of Liang always speaks of profiting his own kingdom (K), his officers will speak of profiting their own manors (M). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

Premise Premise Premise Premise

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

Informal Argument 1 (5) If his officers always speak of profiting their own manors (M), the common people will speak of profiting themselves (T). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

Premise

(7) King Hui of Liang should not speak of profiting his own kingdom ( ¬K ). (Mencius’s conclusion)

Conclusion1

(6) If his officers speak of profiting their own manors or his common people speak of profiting themselves ( M ∨ T ), the kingdom will be imperiled (I). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

(8) King Hui of Liang should speak of Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness (H). (Mencius’s conclusion)

Premise

Conclusion2

Based on the above analysis, now we can reconstruct the formal proof of Informal Argument 1 and thus obtain Hybrid Argument 1. It is called “hybrid” because this integrated version combines both the informal reconstruction and the formal proof of the same argument, and because it can clearly show how Mencius manages to lead his audience into accepting a standpoint which he desires by strategically incorporating his audiences’ demand into his logical justification. For the sake of simplicity, we first list some of the basic inference rules of truth-functional logic, which will be used later (Barker 2003, pp. 95–96): Modus ponens (MP): Modus tollens (MT): Chain argument (CH): Disjunctive arguments (DIS):

Conjunctive arguments (CON): Reductio ad absurdum (RaA): Dilemmas (DIL): Equivalence (EQU):

Tautologies(TAU):

p → q , p; therefore, q p → q , ¬q ; therefore, ¬p p → q , q → r ; therefore, p → r p ∨ q , ¬p ; therefore, q p ∨ q , ¬q ; therefore, p p; therefore, p ∨ q p ∧ q ; therefore, p p → ¬p ; therefore, ¬p p → (q ∧ ¬q) ; therefore, ¬p p → q, r → s, p ∨ r ; therefore, q ∨ s p → q, r → s, ¬q ∨ ¬s ; therefore, ¬p ∨ ¬r p↔p∨p (p ↔ q) ↔ ((p → q) ∧ (q → p)) (p → q) ↔ (¬p ∨ q) (p ∧ q) ↔ (q ∧ p) (p ∨ q) ↔ (q ∨ p) p ↔ ¬¬p (p ∨ (q ∨ r)) ↔ ((p ∨ q) ∨ r) ¬(p ∧ q) ↔ (¬p ∨ ¬q) ¬(p ∨ q) ↔ (¬p ∧ ¬q) (p ∧ (q ∧ r)) ↔ ((p ∧ q) ∧ r) (p ∨ (q ∧ r)) ↔ ((p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)) (p ∧ (q ∨ r)) ↔ ((p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)) ((p ∧ q) → r) ↔ (p → (q → r)) p→p p ∨ ¬p

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation Hybrid Argument 1 (1)

H

Premise

Mencius’s implicit demand

(2)

¬I

Premise

The King’s explicit demand

(3)

K∨H

Premise

Mencius’s supposition

(4)

K→M

Premise

Mencius’s supposition

(5)

M→C

Premise

Mencius’s supposition

(6)

(M ∨ C) → I

Premise

Mencius’s supposition

(7)

¬(M ∨ C)

6, 2 MT

Logical inference

(8)

¬M ∧ ¬C

7 EQU

Logical inference

(9)

K→C

4, 5 CH

Logical inference

(10)

¬C

8 CON

Logical inference

(11)

¬K

9, 10 MT

Logical inference

(12)

H

3, 11 DIS

Logical inference

(13)

H∧H

1, 12 CON

Logical consequence

We must say, Hybrid Argument 1 is a valid formal deduction in this political argumentation of Mencius. Starting with the King’s demand ¬I at Step 2, Mencius successfully deduces the King’s standpoint that he should not speak of profiting his own kingdom at Step 11. The key point is Mencius’s deducing his own political standpoint that the King should speak of humaneness and righteousness at the last step. H ∧ H at Step 13 means that the first H as Mencius’s implicit demand coincides with the second H as a result of logical inferences in Mencius’s argumentation. This further indicates that Mencius manages by starting strategically with his audiences demand (Step 2) to lead his audience (King Xuan of Qi) into accepting a standpoint that Mencius desires at the very beginning of his argumentation. However, the soundness of this argumentation will depend on the acceptability of the premises (3) to (6). If the King could not doubt their acceptability, he had to accept Mencius’s standpoint as a conclusion that the King should speak of Mencius’s humaneness and righteousness. Next, let’s reconstruct a more complex deductive argumentation in Example 2 by integrating Arguments 1 to 5 into Informal Argument 2 first and then into Hybrid Argument 2 as follows. In this argumentation, Mencius deduces King Xuan of Qi’s demand that he will be a true king from the King’s real situation that he loves music. The King neither denies this basic premise nor refuses the conclusion. The charm of employing argument from positive consequences here is that the intended king unknowingly accepts the whole argumentation of Mencius. It means that the King accepts each conclusion or premise in the following inferential link.

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

Informal Argument 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

King Xuan of Qi should share his enjoyment with the people (E). (Mencius’s implicit demand)

Premise

King Xuan of Qi loves the popular music of today (P). (The King’s real situation)

Premise

King Xuan of Qi will be a true king (T). (The King’s implicit demand)

Premise

If King Xuan of Qi loves the profane music of antiquity (A), he will be a true king (T). (The King’s implicit supposition)

Premise

King Xuan of Qi loves the popular music of today (P), if and only if he loves the profane music of antiquity (A) (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

Premise

If King Xuan of Qi does not share his enjoyment with the people ( ¬E ), he makes music (M) and the people will not be happy ( ¬H ). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

Premise

King Xuan of Qi should enjoy music with many (N). (The King’s explicit supposi- Premise tion)

If King Xuan of Qi enjoys his music with many (N), he shares his enjoyment with the people (E). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

Premise

If King Xuan of Qi shares his enjoyment with the people (E), he makes music (M) and the people will be happy (H). (Mencius’s explicit supposition)

Premise

(10) King Xuan of Qi should share his enjoyment with the people (E). (Mencius’s implicit demand)

(11) King Xuan of Qi will be a true king (T). (Mencius’s conclusion and The King’s implicit demand)

Conclusion1 Conclusion2

In Mencius’s political argumentation, both his own and the intended audience’s demands are the basic premises serving as starting points. Other basic premises serving as starting points include Mencius’s suppositions and the audience’s real situation, concession and supposition. Then we can both deduce the King’s demand at Step 26 and Mencius’s demand at Step 27. Hybrid Argument 2 (1)

E

Premise

Mencius’s implicit demand

(2)

T

Premise

The King’s implicit demand

(3)

P

Premise

The King’s real situation The King’s implicit supposition

(4)

A→T

Premise

(5)

N

Premise

The King’s explicit supposition

(6)

P↔A

Premise

Mencius’s explicit supposition

(7)

N→E

Premise

Mencius’s explicit supposition

(8)

¬E → (M ∧ ¬H)

Premise

Mencius’s explicit supposition

(9)

E → (M ∧ H)

Premise

Mencius’s explicit supposition

(10)

¬H ∨ H

TAU​

Logical truth

(11)

¬¬E ∨ (M ∧ ¬H)

8 EQU

Logical inference

(12)

(¬¬E ∨ M) ∧ (¬¬E ∨ ¬H)

11 EQU

Logical inference

(13)

¬¬E ∨ ¬H

12 CON

Logical inference

(14)

¬E → ¬H

13 EQU

Logical inference

(15)

¬E ∨ (M ∧ H)

9 EQU

Logical inference

(16)

(¬E ∨ M) ∧ (¬E ∨ H)

15 EQU

Logical inference

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation Hybrid Argument 2 (17)

¬E ∧ H

16 CON

Logical inference

(18)

E→H

17 EQU

Logical inference

(19)

¬E ∨ E

18, 14, 10 DIL

Logical inference

(20)

E

7, 5 MP

Logical inference

(21)

E

19, 20 DIS

Logical inference

(22)

(P → A) ∧ (A → P)

6 EQU

Logical inference

(23)

P→A

22 CON

Logical consequence

(24)

P→T

23, 4 CH

Logical consequence

(25)

T

24, 3 MP

Logical consequence

(26)

E∧E

21, 1 CON

Logical consequence

(27)

T∧T

25, 2 CON

Logical consequence

Once achieved, Mencius achieves a balance between reasonableness and effectiveness. It is worth noting that, from the perspective of formal deductive logic, some of the steps in Hybrid Argument 2 seem to be redundant. For example, the E at Step 20 is deduced from Steps 7 and 5 by modus ponens, but at Step 21 done again from Steps 19 and 20 by disjunctive argument. However, the two Es are different because the former E is inferred from Mencius’s explicit supposition of Step 7 and the King’s explicit supposition of Step 5, while the latter E from Mencius’s two suppositions at Steps 8, 9 and a logical truth at Step 10. Step 26 E ∧ E means that the first E as a result of logical inferences from Step 5 till Step 21 coincides with the second E as Mencius’s implicit demand at Step 1. This again shows Mencius’s success in strategically starting with his audience’s demand at Step 5 and managing step by step to lead his audience into accepting the standpoint desired by him. The final step T ∧ T means that the first T as a result of logical inferences from Step 3 to Step 6 and then Step 22 to Step 25 matches with the second T as the King’s implicit demand at Step 2. This further indicates that Mencius has managed to make the King accept the standpoint that the King will be a true king as long as he does what Mencius suggests sharing his enjoyment with people.

6 Conclusion In the early twentieth century, there was a great debate about whether there existed logic in ancient China between Leung Chi-tso (Liang Qichao, 1873–1929) and Wang Kuo-wei (Wang Guowei, 1877–1927). According to Leung, there was logic in ancient China, for example, in The Mohist Canons (Fraser 2015). However, Wang believed that there was only argumentation theory and no logic in ancient China. Interestingly, the controversy continues in modern China, albeit less enthusiastically. With the emergence of informal logic and argumentation theory since the latter half of the twentieth century, this controversy seems to have become less important, because from the perspective of logics, this opposition is nothing more than the opposition between theoretical and practical or formal and informal logic.

13



M. Xiong, L. Yan

We very much agree with Sartor about the logical viewpoint that the two logics formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory - have been separately developing in reciprocal incomprehension and in no open clash for a long time (Sartor 1994). Hence all argumentation theories including Pragma-Dialectics are practical logic. In this sense, the Mohist Canons is certainly not a writing about formal logic, but a true work on argumentation theory with a series of norms governing argumentation. Accordingly, the so-called Mohist logic is very like informal practical logic or argumentation theory in contemporary Western world as well. For this reason, this puts an end to the debate between Leung and Wang. As mentioned above, Mencius, as an argumentation practitioner, is well known for his being argumentative. In his political argumentation, Mencius normally justifies and follows logically from both his own demands and the intended audience’s ones. It means that he finds a rational balance among logical, dialectical and rhetorical justifications by means of a series of strategically maneuvering argumentative moves. Acknowledgements The study is funded by Chinese MOE Projects for Key University Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant No. 15JJD720014), Guangdong Province Pearl River Distinguished Professorship (Grant No. 2013), Argumentation Studies in Ancient China (Grant No. 17GZGX23).

References Barker, S.F. 2003. The elements of logic. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Combs, S.C. 2006. The Dao of rhetoric. Albany: State University of New York Press. Confucius. 2008. Analects. Trans. by B. Yang and D. C. Lau. Shanghai: Zhonghua Book Company. Cui, Q. 2004. Analogy: The leading type of reasoning in Chinese logic. Academic Journal of Zhongzhou (Chinese) 141(3): 136–141. Fraser, C. 2015. Mohist Canons. In Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy. https​://plato​ .stanf​ord.edu/entri​es/mohis​t-canon​s/. Accessed 18 May 2017. Jin, R. 2014. The theory of Tuilei and justification for characteristics of ancient Chinese logic. Journal of Social Sciences (Chinese) 4: 127–136. Jin, L., and Y. Yu. 2014. Dialogue, analogy and metaphor: A study on the characteristics of the debate in the essays of Mencius. Zhejiang Social Sciences (Chinese) 10: 121–126. Laozi. 1999. Tao Te Ching. Trans. by A. Waley. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Liu, C. 2017. On the analogical rhetoric in Mencius. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) (Chinese) 32(1): 67–73. Mencius. 2009. Mencius. Trans. by I. Bloom. New York: Columbia University Press. Mencius. 2011. The works of Mencius. Trans. by J. Legge. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Micius. 2011. The Mohist Canons. Trans. by R. Wang and H. Wang. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Sartor, G. 1994. A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7(2): 177–211. Stecherbatsky, F.T. 2011. Buddhist logic: Part 1 (photoprint). LaVergne: Kessinger Publishing. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. van Eemeren, F.H., and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2017. Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation, 2nd ed. New York and London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Van Norden, B. 2014. Mencius. In Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. https​://plato​ .stanf​ord.edu/entri​es/menci​us/. Accessed 18 May 2017.

13

Mencius’s Strategies of Political Argumentation Walton, D.N. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walton, D.N. 2008. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wen, G. 1983. The history of logic in pre-Qin period (Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai People Press. Zisi. 2011. The doctrine of the mean. Trans. by J. Legge. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

13