The Rule-following Problem In Chinese Traditional Philosophy

Following a rule is the core of the later philosophy of Wittgenstein. The basic problem is that how do we think that using a sign in one way is right and in another way is wrong. Many solutions have been put forward for this problem. This passage introduces the most influential four answers. They are the dispositional theory, the ’qualia’ solution, the platonism of rule-following, and the appealing for simplicity. Wittgenstein checks each of them in detail and finds that they are all impotent and refuses them all. This is Wittgenstein’s negative attitude of following a rule. Thereafter I also outline the main point of of the positive attitude of him. It can be summarized in one sentence:Following a rule is a practice. Thus we must talk about the meaning of a word in the context. Under the thought of following a rule which Wittgenstein introduces, I then investigate Chuangtse’s On Levelling All Things, which I think provides very similar ideas with Wittgenstein’s. Then I compare the philosophical attitude between Chuangtse and Wittgenstein. This can help us understand their rule-following thought better. Through this we can see that the sceptical thought appears in both Chuangtse’s and Wittgenstein’s rule-following thought is not their genuine attitude. The genuine philosophical attitude of them lies in the word’die ubersichtliche Darstellung’ which in Wittgenstein means get a clear eye of something and the Yiming which in Chuangtse means perspicuity. The meaning of the two words differentiate in many aspects, but they are the same in essence. It is the philosophical attitude which this two words indicate makes Chuangtse and Wittgenstein stand in the same field and distinct with all the other traditional philosophers. After this, I use Wittgenstein’s tactic to inspect two famous argument in Chinese traditional philosophy:Sengzhao’s On Things Unchanging and Gongsun Long’s On White Horse Is Not Horse. After the analysis of the processes of Sengzhao and Gongsun Long’s argument, I indicate that both Sengzhao and Gongsun Long are trying to innovate new rules to replace our ordinary language rules. As we have seen in Wittgenstein’s thought, there is no reason to treat their new rules as the ideal one. In the opposite, their innovations break away from our way of life. That is the reason they cannot be accepted.