The happy fish episode from the outer chapters of the Zhuangzi poses enormous difficulty for interpreters. While it may appear to surprisingly resemble the dialectic in Western philosophy, any attempt to analyse it in terms of the patterns of inference familiar to the West is often frustrated by the ostensible queerness that defies such treatment. The following examination of the dialogue in the episode is intended to address the difficulty and to provide a reasoned explanation for both the surface resemblance (...) and apparent queerness. I suggest that the dialogue becomes perfectly intelligible, if it is read against the backdrop of the disputations practiced in ancient China. My contention is that the real purpose of the dialogue is to expose the fundamental unreliability of the logic of the disputers by means of the logic itself. (shrink)

The second half of the twentieth century was marked by the appearance of a new and original school in Russian sinology which uses the so-called methodology of ‘structural analysis’ in studying Chinese classics and attempts to find an authentic methodology among Chinese philosophers themselves. Its most influential representatives are V.S. Spirin, A. M. Karapetyants, A. I. Kobzev and A. A. Krushinsky. The main thesis of Russian ‘structuralists’ is that the composition of the ancient Chinese text influences its content directly. A (...) composition of a text is derived from a configuration of its parallel passages. The method of ‘structural analysis’, therefore, aims to detect and describe these parallelisms, and then makes some interpretation of them. The present paper gives a short introduction to the history of this school, its main representatives and concepts, and also shows how the method of ‘structural analysis’ works on some concrete examples. (shrink)