Ming-shi(名实) And Zhi-wu(指物)

The purpose of the Pre-Qin Scholars to discuss Ming (名) was to redress thetheoretical and social problems that raised by the confusion of the Ming-Shi argument, and it had no exception for Kong-sun Long, who also advocated the principle of "rectification of names"(Zheng Ming). But there were different views on the use of the Ming between Kong-sun Long and other Scholars (especially represented by Mohist, Hsun Tzu). Mohist and Hsun Tzu attached high importance to the individual class name(Lei Ming), and acknowledged that a "Name" (Ming) had more meanings of "Real"(Shi); while Kong-sun Long paid much attention to the nature and idea of the Zhuan Ming ( "White Horse dialogue ") and therefore regarded that "Name" (Ming)and "Real"(Shi) had a strict one-to-one relationship("Ming-Shi Argument"). This shows that he had deep insights into the metaphysical distinction on the individual and idea. Generally speaking, idea is a being that exists in the metaphysical field rather than in the experiential field, therefore it is not a being that corresponded to the individual of experiential field. Furthermore, the understanding of the idea is different from the understanding of the individual, the later is a understanding of experience while the former is a metaphysical insight based upon the spirit and intellect. Accoding to the above, it is right to say that Kong-sun Long's academic interests were in the metaphysical field. Therefore I will review the metaphysical thinking of Kong-sun Long based upon the following literatures: " White Horse dialogue", "Ming-shi Argument", "Hard White dialogue" and "Zhi-wu Argument."...