| Abstract |
Some conclusions may be drawn from the debates on the mortality/immortality of soul in Liou Ch’ao (六朝). Firstly, ancient Chinese used to do image-thinking rather than idea-analyzing and inferring, which characterizes ancient Chinese patterns of thinking. Secondly, neither the positive nor the negative defendants properly grasped the characteristics and usage of analogy, which leads to overinterfering, and blocking path of thinking. This is readily shown by the analogy of knife and blade to body and soul. Thirdly, unlike Hue Yuen (慧遠) and Chen Cien Chih (鄭鮮之) in earlier time, who could produce independent theories from Fan Chen’s, most debaters failed to establish their arguments against Fan Chens (范縝 ) opinions to the core. Only trivial questioning was provided. Fourthly, when debating with unequal defendants, antinomy is a potent instrument to point out their self-contradiction and make them awake without abandoning image-thinking. Fifthly, ancient Chinese inclined to ascribe final standard of truth to authorities especially the words from earlier saints. Neither the positive nor the negative defendants would dare to offend against the arguments based on saints’ words, which does not do any good in clarifying truths. Finally, what Fan Chen (范縝) insisted on is monic-materialism, a rough philosophy in fact, yet not recognized by the academic scholars thereafter; consequently, Fan Chen’s (范縝) arguments have been taken to be perfectly right in the field of academy. What I am doing here is not to reverse a previous verdict but point out what facts are. But why Fan Chen’s philosophy cannot be properly valued by scholars is a question which can be answered only by the scholars themselves.
|
