Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.13> Article
Research Article

Transcending Differences Between the Tao and the Logos

Yifang XiaNanjing Normal University*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Contrary to what has been proposed by some former scholars, this paper argues that there is no phonocentrism in the traditional Chinese conception of language in consideration of the differences between “Logos” and “Tao”. Different from “Logos”, which can be objectified and functions as the prerequisite and fixed principle of all meanings, both imposing restrictions and offering possibilities, the characteristic of “Tao” is that it cannot be fashioned into any shape and cannot be grasped in a definite, concrete way, and it produces all beings without making any regulations for them. Nonetheless, these differences can be transcended by inspecting their similarities in the way to be conveyed and interpreted. Both “Zhi(指)” in Chinese philosophy and “signify” in Western metaphysics can lead to the play of signifiers. And in the process of mutual elucidation, Western metaphysics can find a way out of the restriction of logocentrism, whilst Chinese “Tao” can obtain a more logical discussion and avoid being distorted by arbitrary interpretation.

Keywords: signify; Chinese characters; phonocentrism; logocentrism
Published: November 20, 2023
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/13/20230297
Volume: CHR Vol.13
pp. 185-193
Download PDF

References

  1. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976 ).
  2. Meighoo, Sean. “Derrida’s Chinese Prejudice.” Cultural Critique, no. 68 (2008): 163–209. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25475465
  3. H.J.Krämer, Der Ursprung Der Geistmetaphysik (Amsterdam: Verlag P. Schippers, 1964).
  4. Aristotle, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Edited by Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
  5. Qian Zhongshu, Guan Zhui Bian (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1979).
  6. Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos: Literary Hermeneutics, East and West (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1992).
  7. Fu Hongchu. “Deconstruction and Taoism: Comparisons Reconsidered.” Comparative Literature Studies 29, no. 3 (1992): 296–321. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246839
  8. Arthur Bradley, Derrida’s Of Grammatology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2008).
  9. He Jiuying, History of Ancient Chinese Linguistics (Beijing: Peking University Press, 2006).
  10. Gu Ming Dong. “SINOLOGISM IN LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY: A CRITIQUE OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER CHINESE LANGUAGE.” Philosophy East and West 64, no. 3 (2014): 692–717. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43285906
  11. Hansen Chad. “Chinese Ideographs and Western Ideas.” The Journal of Asian Studies 52, no. 2 (1993): 373–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2059652
  12. Bai Yanxia . “Is there phonocentrism in Chinese language concepts?” Foreign Literature Review, no. 3 (1996): 14-24.
  13. Wu, Joseph S. “Chinese Language and Chinese Thought.” Philosophy East and West 19, no. 4 (1969): 423–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1397634
  14. Ferdinand de Saussure, Courses in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
  15. Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching Or Tao and its Characteristics, trans. James Legge (The Floating Press, 2008).
  16. Zhuangzi, The Complete Works of Zhuangzi, trans. Burton Watson (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
  17. Eric Voegelin, Order and History, Volume IV: The Ecumenic Age (Columbia: Columbia University of Missouri Press, 2000).
  18. The Chinese Classics: Confucian Analects, The Great Learning, and The Doctrine of the Mean, trans. James Legge (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press).
  19. Qiu Xigui, Current studies on Lao Tse (Shanghai: Zhongxi Book Company, 2021).
  20. Shuowen Jiezi Zhu说文解字註 (written by〔Han〕Xu Shen許慎, annotated by〔Qing〕Duan Yucai段玉裁, Shanghai: Shanghai Chinese Classics Publishing House, 2004).
  21. 〔Southern Tang〕Xu Kai徐锴, Shuowen Jiezi Xizhuan说文解字系传, (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1987).
  22. Zhang Xiaomei. (2020). Rediscussion on the traditional Liushu theory with reference to sign language. Journal of Yanbian University (Social Science Edition) (05), 115-123+143-144. doi:10.16154/j.cnki.cn22-1025/ c.2020.05.015
  23. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, Joachim Schulte (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009).
  24. Michael Tomasello, Origins of Human Communication (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008).
  25. Liszkowski, Ulf, Marie Schäfer, Malinda Carpenter, and Michael Tomasello. “Prelinguistic Infants, but Not Chimpanzees, Communicate About Absent Entities.” Psychological Science 20, no. 5 (2009): 654–60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40575076
  26. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1963).
  27. The Book of Change (Zhou Yi): A Bronze Age Document with Introduction and Notes, trans. Richard Butt (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon).
  28. Martin Heidegger, Sein Und Zeit, (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1967).
  29. A.P. Martinich. The Philosophy of Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
  30. Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 2001).
  31. Martin Heidegger, The Phenomenology of Religious Life, trans. Matthias Fritsch and Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004).