QUOTES

1 " Generally speaking, the apparent lack of argumentation in some traditional Chinese texts doesn't mean that they don't contain argumentation. Rather, they may have simply skipped many argumentation steps and offered instead an 'argumentation sketch', or the key and most difficult steps in an argumentation. In fact, even in works of physics and mathematics that are known for their rigor, argumentation steps are often skipped, and the failure of a reader to understand them if often not a sign of a lack of rigor of the works in question but the lack of the reader's competence in becoming a good physicist or mathematician. As Friedrich Nietzsche put it in his discussion of the beauty of the aphoristic style, 'In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak: but for that one must have long legs. Aphorisms should be peaks - and those who are addressed, tall and lofty' (1954, 40 [ part 1, sec. 7,'On Reading and Writing']). "

― , Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case

3 " But why an argumentation sketch? The reasons are to save time or simply to be realistic (a rigorous proof in an axiomatic system can be impossibly long), to show off, from an 'aristocratic pride' that despises the plain and the common, and so on. But there is also a philosophically relevant reason for it: every complicated problem may demand countless steps of argumentation if we want truly rigorous argumentation, but the readers may be distracted by and lost in all the trivial arguments. An argument sketch, then, may be advantageous in that it offers readers the big picture with important signposts, and a qualified reader can fill in the missing steps. This incisiveness, and the ability to see and show the big picture, I believe, is what makes the great thinkers - whether great philosophers or great scientists - great. "

― , Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case

5 " Early Confucian (and Chinese) classics can be read philosophically, if philosophy is understood as I suggested above. This understanding of philosophy then implies certain methods of reading these texts. It requires us to clarify and enrich the argumentation in these texts by making up the missing steps, and to tease out the hidden systems in these texts, always with their contemporary relevance in mind and with a sensibility to their original contexts simultaneously.
To apply these methods to traditional texts, the first thing we need to do is to discover the apparent discrepancies and even contradiction within an argument and among different arguments in the same text or by the same author. After actively making these discoveries, however, we should not do what an analytically minded thinker of classical Chinese texts tends to do, such as claiming that the author failed to see the contradictions, he didn't know logic, and so on. Rather, we should apply the principle of respect and charity to the reading of these texts, for since ancient Greece or pre-Qin China, there haven't been many great thinkers in human history (which is why we call them 'great thinkers'). If we can easily find apparent confusion and contradictions in their works, as reasonable guess is not that they didn't think clearly but that we didn't; that is, we failed to appreciate the depth of these most profound thinkers in human history due to our own limited intellectual capacity or being confined to our own context. In this sense, to respect 'authority' (great thinkers and their texts) is to think critically and to criticize and transcend the authority of today (our own prejudices and close-mindedness). Therefore, after discovering the discrepancies, we should try to see if we can make up the missing steps, or reconstruct hidden coherence between apparently contradictory arguments. "

― , Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case