Abstract
We are trying to answer the following question, using the distinctions of contemporary logic: why did the Moists stop at some points on their otherwise remarkable way to logic? We argue that they did not explicitly discover negation because of their insistence on linguistic parallelism; they did not recognize logical conjunction nor logical disjunction because of juxtaposition or prefixation; they did not identify the notion of sufficient condition; negation of quantifiers was treated as a problem of extension; their notion of proposition was limited; they discovered some intensionality phenomena but did not explore them very deeply; they insisted more on argumentation than on logic. However our exploration of these limitations shows that the Moists had discovered many logical phenomena and that their attention to the structure of the proposition and to their parallelism reveals a real interest in formal methods.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
