Six Essential Schools Chapter 06 School of Names

正名求实的名家

Chapter 6 School of Names (Mingjia)

Rectifying names and seeking reality

Logicians who seek accurate definitions and discernment

名家学派也叫做名辩之学，就是现代人说的逻辑论辩的意思，在印度叫做因明学。战国时期，西方哲学也分为两派，一派是知识论，就是只注重学问上的论证；另外一派叫做经验论，就是说，光凭知识来论证是不够的，必须要有实证才行。名家的学者们知识丰富，能够纯熟地运用语言作为辩证的工具，对于语言文字的掌握非常精湛，思维敏锐，有极高的逻辑思维能力和智慧。

The School of Names, also known as the School of Names and Disputation, may be compared to what we today call logic and dialectical reasoning. In the Indian tradition, comparable studies developed within the disciplines of logic and inference (Hetuvidyā).

During the Warring States period, philosophical thought in the West was also developing along different lines. One approach emphasized knowledge and rational argumentation, while another stressed the importance of experience and empirical verification. The latter held that reasoning alone was not sufficient and that claims should be supported by evidence and observation.

Scholars of the School of Names possessed extensive learning and were highly skilled in the use of language as a tool of analysis and debate. They demonstrated remarkable mastery of words and concepts, sharp intellectual discernment, and exceptional abilities in logical reasoning.

跟据《汉书》的记载，名家学派最早可以追溯到上古的礼官。从法律开始成文开始，社会上就已经出现了类似律师一类人，他们根据法律条文进行辩护，因此称他们为“辩者”。墨家也有类似这样的人，叫做“墨辩”。名家又分为“合同异派”和““离坚白派”，代表人物有惠施，公孙龙，邓析，宋鈃，尹文等等。

According to the Book of Han (Hanshu), the origins of the School of Names can be traced back to the ritual officials of ancient times. As written laws and legal codes emerged, there also appeared individuals who specialized in argumentation and defense based on legal texts. These people became known as "debaters" (bianzhe).

The Mohist tradition likewise developed a similar practice of disputation, often referred to as "Mohist debate" (Mo Bian). Over time, the School of Names came to be associated with two major tendencies: the He Tong Yi (Harmony and Difference) school and the Li Jian Bai(Hardness and Whiteness) school.

Among its most representative figures were Hui Shi, Gongsun Long, Deng Xi, Song Xing, and Yin Wen.

我们继续读太史公对名家的评论：

Let us continue with Tai Shigong's assessment of the School of Names:

名家使人俭而善失真；然其正名实，不可不察也。

"The School of Names makes people overly constrained and prone to losing touch with reality; yet its insistence on the correct relationship between names and actualities deserves careful attention."

名家学派让人约束（在知识的逻辑辩论里），往往就会偏失了真理的真实含义；但名家注重正名求实，就是查证名称和概念的真实性，这是我们现实生活中不可以不查验清楚的事情。

（前面讲到墨家的时候，也有一个“俭”字，墨家的俭是俭朴的意思。这里名家的“俭”，意思就不一样了。根据说文解字，“俭”的意思是：俭，約也。約者、缠束也。）

The School of Names tends to constrain people within the framework of logical argumentation and conceptual analysis, which can sometimes lead them away from the fuller reality of things. However, its emphasis on rectifying names and seeking reality—carefully examining whether names, concepts, and definitions correspond to actual conditions—is something that remains indispensable in everyday life.

(When discussing the Mohist school earlier, the character jian (俭) was understood in the sense of simplicity and frugality. In the case of the School of Names, however, the meaning is different. According to the Shuowen Jiezi, jian (俭) means restraint, limitation, or being bound within certain constraints. Sima Tan's criticism was therefore not directed at frugality, but at the tendency to become overly confined within conceptual distinctions and logical debates.)

名家苛察缴绕，使人不得反其意，专决于名而失人情，故曰“使人俭而善失真”。若夫控名责实，参伍不失，此不可不察也。

“The School of Names is meticulous and intricate in its distinctions, often causing people to become absorbed in definitions and lose sight of human realities. Hence it is said that it “constrains people and tends to lose touch with reality. Yet its insistence on examining names and verifying realities, without neglecting any aspect, is something that cannot be overlooked.”

名家的学者们在知识逻辑上严格细致地考察推敲纠缠，反而让自己不能明白真理的真意。过于专注在知识的逻辑辩论上，却失去了人天性中的实际内容（“性者，天之就也；情者，性之质也“——《荀子·正名》），所以说名家是“使人俭而善失真”，学的知识越多，在知识逻辑上面去寻找真理，反而会被知识困住了，越来越迷茫。但是，名家的优点和精要之处，是“控名责实”，就是需要考察证实名称和概念的真实性，“叁伍”是易经上面的词，代表卦的第三爻和第五爻，就是从内到外都要搞清楚，每一个方面都要核实，这是不可不认真考察的。

Scholars of the School of Names often engaged in rigorous and meticulous analysis of logic and argumentation. Yet such excessive attention to distinctions and debates could sometimes prevent them from grasping the deeper meaning of truth. By becoming overly absorbed in logical reasoning, they risked losing sight of the realities of human nature and human experience (“Human nature is what Heaven endows; emotions are the substance of human nature.” — Xunzi, Rectifying Names).

This is why Sima Tan remarked that the School of Names “constrains people and tends to lose touch with reality.” The more one seeks truth solely through intellectual analysis and logical argument, the easier it becomes to be trapped by knowledge itself and fall into confusion.

Nevertheless, the strength and essential value of the School of Names lie in its principle of “examining names and verifying realities” (kong ming ze shi). Names, concepts, and definitions must be carefully tested against actual conditions. The term san wu (参伍), borrowed from the Yijing, originally refers to the third and fifth lines of a hexagram. Here it suggests examining a matter from multiple perspectives and verifying every aspect thoroughly. Such careful scrutiny is something that cannot be neglected.

太史公在这里很明确地提出来，如果只在名称和概念上进行逻辑辩论，就可能迷失了真理，这是名家学者的问题。这里的“真理”是悟道和得道的意思，诸子百家都是在以不同的方法追寻悟道和真理。中国古文的文字，经常都有一字多意的情况，用在不同的句子里，就有不同的意思。我们现代人可以理解成咬文嚼字的意思。这个咬文嚼字的问题，从古至今都是一个话题。字面上的逻辑讲得再多，还是不能悟道，明白生命和宇宙的真理。老子在《道德经》里说：

“为学日益，为道日损，损而又损，以至无为，无为而无不为。”

在学习知识上，就要每天勤奋多学，多多益善；但是知识越多，烦恼越多，凡是搞思想，搞逻辑，搞哲学的人，很多都是越研究越糊涂，最后就迷失了。所以，老子说，要想“为道”，真正懂得宇宙包罗万象的真理，就需要做减法了，把学会的知识全部丢掉（放下对知识的执着），返回清净心，清净到什么都没有的时候，才能什么真理都明白了。

Tai Shigong clearly points out that if one remains solely engaged in logical debates over names and concepts, one may lose sight of the deeper truth. This, in his view, was one of the shortcomings of the School of Names. Here, “truth” refers not merely to factual correctness, but to the realization of the Dao and the ultimate principles underlying life and the universe. The various schools of Chinese thought all sought this realization, though each pursued it through different methods.

Classical Chinese is rich in words that carry multiple meanings, and the significance of a term often depends on its context. This tendency can sometimes lead to what we might today call “quibbling over words.” The problem of excessive attachment to language and definitions has been discussed throughout Chinese intellectual history. No matter how refined a logical argument may be, language alone cannot lead one to the realization of the Dao or to a full understanding of life and the cosmos.

As Laozi states in the Dao De Jing:

“In the pursuit of learning, one accumulates daily;
in the pursuit of the Dao, one reduces daily.
Reduce and reduce again, until one reaches non-action.
Through non-action, nothing is left undone.”

In the realm of learning, diligence and the accumulation of knowledge are valuable. Yet knowledge alone does not necessarily bring wisdom. Those who devote themselves exclusively to intellectual speculation, logic, or philosophy may find themselves increasingly entangled in concepts and further removed from direct understanding.

For Laozi, the pursuit of the Dao requires a different approach. One must gradually let go of attachments to accumulated knowledge and return to a state of inner clarity and stillness. Only when the mind becomes quiet and unburdened can one begin to perceive the deeper reality that lies beyond words and concepts.

老子的这一段话非常难懂，我们可以借用佛经来进一步理解，佛经里有一个词叫做“世智辩聪”，是指人世间的学问和智慧，不同于般若智慧。佛说：“我法妙难思”。真理和般若智慧，没有办法用世间的智慧去理解，也没有办法用语言和文字解释清楚，说得再多也没有用。只能意会，不能言传。方法不对，走叉了道路，说得理论越多，越与实际情况不符合，越走越远。历史上有很多头等聪明的人，都不能悟道，就是这个问题。就是“所知障”，被自己的知识和学问困住了。禅宗佛法里有一句话：“依文解字，三世佛冤；离经一字，允为魔说。” 就是说，如果按照经典里的文字，咬文嚼字，就很容易理解错误，就是曲解了过去，现在，将来的所有的佛的教导；如果讲出来的道理，与经书里的内容稍有偏差，哪怕只差一个字，就不是佛说的，而是魔说的。所以，如果只注重文字逻辑的辩论，走得过头了，就会出偏差，与真理相违背。

Laozi’s statement is not easy to understand, and Buddhist teachings may help illuminate its meaning. In Buddhism, there is a term known as shizhi biancong (世智辩聪), often translated as “worldly knowledge and intellectual cleverness.” It refers to ordinary human learning and intelligence, which are distinct from prajñā—transcendent wisdom.

The Buddha taught that the Dharma is profound and difficult to comprehend. Ultimate truth and prajñā cannot be fully grasped through ordinary intellect, nor can they be completely explained through language and words. No amount of discussion or analysis is sufficient. They must be directly realized rather than merely described.

When one's approach is misguided, one may stray from the path. The more attached one becomes to theories and conceptual arguments, the further one may drift from direct experience and reality. Throughout history, many exceptionally intelligent people have failed to attain genuine insight for this very reason. In Buddhist thought, this is known as the “obstacle of knowledge” (jñeyāvaraṇa)—becoming trapped by one's own learning and understanding.

There is a well-known saying in Chan (Zen) Buddhism:

“To cling to the words and interpret them literally is to wrong the Buddhas of the three times; to depart from the scriptures by even a single word is to fall into mistaken teachings.”

The saying points to a paradox. If one becomes overly attached to the literal meaning of the texts, one may misunderstand their deeper intent. Yet if one strays too far from the teachings, one also loses the correct path. Therefore, excessive reliance on textual analysis and logical debate can ultimately lead one away from the truth rather than toward it.

我们可以在《庄子》里找到庄子和惠施的精彩对话片段，进一步理解名家是怎么回事。惠施是战国时期宋国人，就是惠子，他是名家的辩论高手，他与庄子是好朋友，经常一起辩论，惠施死后，庄子很难过，说：

“自夫子之死也，吾无以为质矣，吾无与言之矣！”

在这里可以引用一段庄子对惠施的评论：

We can gain a deeper understanding of the School of Names through the famous dialogues between Zhuangzi (c. 369–286 BCE) and Hui Shi (c. 370–310 BCE), recorded in the Zhuangzi.

Hui Shi, also known as Huizi, was a native of the State of Song during the Warring States period and one of the leading representatives of the School of Names. Renowned for his skill in debate and logical reasoning, he maintained a close friendship with Zhuangzi, and the two frequently engaged in philosophical discussions and debates.

After Hui Shi's death, Zhuangzi expressed his deep sense of loss, saying:

“Since the death of my friend, I have had no one with whom to test my ideas, and no one with whom to converse.”

The friendship between Zhuangzi and Hui Shi remains one of the most memorable intellectual relationships in Chinese philosophy.

The following passage records Zhuangzi’s reflections on Hui Shi:

“惠施多方，其书五车，其道舛驳，其言也不中。”

Zhuangzi said:

“Hui Shi possessed a vast range of learning, and his writings filled five carts. Yet his doctrines were disparate and contradictory, and his words often missed the essential point.”

庄子说，惠施的学问大得很，加起来用五辆马车都装不完，惠施用繁杂的逻辑辩论来阐述真理，他这样逻辑辩论的言辞并不能把真理讲清楚。

Zhuangzi recognized Hui Shi as a scholar of extraordinary learning whose writings were said to fill five carts. Yet he believed that Hui Shi’s elaborate logical arguments were ultimately unable to make the truth fully clear. No matter how refined the reasoning, truth cannot always be captured through concepts and debate alone.

“惠施以此为大观于天下而晓辩者，天下之辩者相与乐之。辩者以此与惠施相应，终身无穷。“

Zhuangzi continued:

“Hui Shi regarded this as a great accomplishment and the highest form of debate. Those who enjoyed disputation delighted in it, and debaters followed his example, engaging one another in endless arguments throughout their lives.”

庄子接着说，惠施是通晓逻辑辩论的人，他用这样逻辑辩论的方法来论证天下的真理。天下喜欢辩论的人也对这种方法乐此不疲，喜欢辩论的人跟惠施一样，一辈子都辩论不完。

In this passage, Zhuangzi describes Hui Shi as a master of logical debate who sought to explore the truths of the world through argument and reasoning. Those who delighted in disputation found great enjoyment in this approach and were naturally drawn to it. Like Hui Shi, they could spend a lifetime engaged in debate, with arguments leading to further arguments and discussions continuing without end.

现代的学术界和科学界也有这样的问题，研究得越来越多，越来越杂，不能返本溯源，最后迷失了方向。比如，科学界已经有一个共识，就是认为，我们这个宇宙的起源是一个大爆炸，然后我们的宇宙是在不断的膨胀。那么，膨胀到什么时候？然后会怎么样？大爆炸之前，又是什么？这样的论题，是人类一直在讨论的，终极一生都说不完。这样最终还是不能找到根本的真理。爱因斯坦研究量子力学，物质分到不可分的时候，物质是哪里来的，爱因斯坦就迷失了，又回归宗教了，推给上帝了。这些都是因为思维被名称和现象所套住了。不光是学者和文人会被名相套住，我们普通人也是一样，就是我们平时说的“一叶障目“，我们都有自己的主观和看法，从小到大受到的教育和成长环境，就造就了自己的观点。一旦抓住一个观点或者看法，就有可能一辈子都改不过来了，然后越陷越深，不能看清楚事实的真相。

Similar challenges can also be found in modern academia and science. As research becomes increasingly specialized and complex, scholars may lose sight of the original questions they seek to answer. The accumulation of knowledge does not always lead to a deeper understanding of ultimate reality.

For example, modern cosmology generally accepts that our universe originated in the Big Bang and continues to expand. Yet questions remain: What, if anything, preceded the Big Bang? How will the universe ultimately evolve? Such questions have occupied generations of thinkers and may continue to do so indefinitely. Despite remarkable advances in knowledge, the search for ultimate truth remains unfinished.

Even great scientists such as Einstein wrestled with questions concerning the fundamental nature and origin of reality. When inquiry reaches its limits, reason alone may not always provide satisfactory answers. In this sense, even the greatest minds can find themselves confronted by mysteries that lie beyond conceptual explanation.

This challenge is not limited to scholars and scientists. It affects all of us. Our views are shaped by our education, experiences, and cultural environment. Once we become attached to a particular perspective, it can be difficult to see beyond it. Over time, such attachments may deepen, preventing us from seeing things as they truly are.

This is similar to the Chinese saying, “a single leaf can block one’s view.” Personal assumptions, opinions, and preconceptions can obscure reality, making it difficult to perceive the truth directly.

名家的精要之处是“正名实”，就是“控名责实”，要核实和考察名称和概念的真实性。为什么太史公要强调名家的“控名责实”？

The essence of the School of Names lies in “rectifying names and actualities” and in “examining names and verifying realities.” Its central concern is whether names and concepts truly correspond to reality.

Why, then, did Sima Tan consider this principle so important?

名家的学者们，讲究科学的逻辑思维，以事实为依据，一丝不苟地做学问。古人讲究考据，任何事物的辩论，都要有根有据，不能凭空捏造，这是古人的逻辑，跟我们现代科学和逻辑学讲求实证是一个意思。我们的祖先是讲究科学实证的，从天文，历法，地理，数学各种知识和学问，都讲究科学实证。例如，《周易》一书，彻底脱下了宗教的外衣，只是现代人读不懂，反而又把古圣先贤的智慧穿上了宗教的外衣。《论语》里有：“子不语怪力乱神”。孔子不讨论怪力乱神的事情。孔子还说：“敬鬼神而远之“。这是圣人讲的警告的话，也是人类历史哲学的真理。一个时代衰落的时候，就会充满了怪力乱神的人和事情。如果仔细学习古圣先贤的智慧，就会明白都是讲的大科学，对于我们现代人来说，有很多可以研究学习的地方。

Scholars of the School of Names valued logical reasoning, careful examination, and factual verification. They approached learning with precision and intellectual discipline. In traditional Chinese scholarship, arguments were expected to be supported by evidence and grounded in reality rather than invented without foundation. In this respect, their approach shares something in common with the modern emphasis on observation, verification, and critical inquiry.

Our ancestors applied this spirit of careful investigation to many fields of knowledge, including astronomy, calendrical studies, geography, mathematics, and other disciplines. The emphasis was not merely on speculation, but on observing patterns and verifying facts.

The Yijing (Book of Changes), for example, is often misunderstood as a religious text. Yet at its core, it is a work concerned with patterns, change, and the observation of natural and human affairs. Ironically, while the ancient sages sought to understand the principles underlying life and the universe, modern readers sometimes place a religious or mystical cloak over their wisdom because they no longer fully understand it.

In the Analects, it is recorded that “the Master did not speak of the strange, the supernatural, disorder, or spirits.” In other words, Confucius avoided speculation about mysterious and supernatural matters. He also said, “Respect ghosts and spirits, but keep them at a distance.”

These were not casual remarks. They were important warnings from a sage and reflect a profound insight into human history. When an age begins to decline, people often become increasingly fascinated by the strange, the supernatural, and the irrational.

If we study the wisdom of the ancient sages carefully, we may discover that much of it is rooted in careful observation, practical experience, and a sincere search for truth. For modern readers, there remains much to explore, study, and learn from these enduring traditions of thought.

我们继续从历史和《史记.孝武本纪》里去理解太史公这一段的意思。从秦始皇到汉武帝的时代，充满了各种招摇撞骗的假方士，就是我们现代人说的江湖骗子，或者叫做文化骗子。因为邹衍的阴阳五行的道术非常难学，他们学不通阴阳家的学术，所以那个时候一般的方士都是假方士，都在假借神仙的名义讨生活，欺骗帝王和社会上的人。汉武帝跟秦始皇一样，要想求长生不老，就非常相信这些假方士。司马迁是参加过汉武帝的封禅大典的，《史记.孝武本纪》结尾有这样一段话：

” 太史公曰：余从巡祭天地诸神名山川而封禅焉。入寿宫侍祠神语，究观方士祠官之言，于是退而论次自古以来用事于鬼神者，具见其表里。后有君子，得以览焉。至若俎豆圭币之详，献酬之礼，则有司存焉。“

这一段总结，是太史公的感慨，看了当时这些仪式，就知道自古以来迷信鬼神之说和行骗的人是怎么回事了。

To further understand Sima Tan’s remarks, it is helpful to consider the historical background and Sima Qian’s observations recorded in the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian), particularly in the Annals of Emperor Wu of Han.

From the time of the First Emperor of Qin to Emperor Wu of Han, the pursuit of immortality became a powerful force in political and religious life. Numerous fangshi(masters of esoteric arts and techniques) claimed to possess knowledge of immortality, divine beings, and supernatural methods. Yet many of these claims were difficult to verify, and throughout history some individuals undoubtedly exploited such beliefs for personal gain.

The teachings of the Yin-Yang School and the theories of the Five Elements were complex and profound. According to later interpretations, many self-proclaimed practitioners lacked a genuine understanding of these traditions and instead relied on stories of immortals, magical techniques, and supernatural powers to attract followers and patrons.

Like the First Emperor of Qin before him, Emperor Wu of Han was deeply interested in the possibility of attaining immortality and therefore paid considerable attention to such figures. Sima Qian personally witnessed many of the imperial ceremonies, including the Feng and Shan sacrifices. At the conclusion of the Annals of Emperor Wu of Han, he wrote:

“The Grand Historian said: I accompanied the imperial tours and sacrificial ceremonies to Heaven, Earth, the famous mountains, and the rivers, and witnessed the Feng and Shan rites. I entered the Palace of Longevity and attended the sacrificial ceremonies, listening to the words of the fangshiand ritual officials. Thereupon I withdrew and arranged an account of those who, since ancient times, have engaged in matters concerning spirits and deities, setting forth both their outer appearances and their inner realities. Those who come after may examine them. As for the details of sacrificial vessels, jade tablets, silk offerings, and ritual procedures, these are preserved by the responsible officials.”

This passage reveals Sima Qian’s reflective attitude toward the religious practices of his age. Having personally observed these ceremonies and listened to the claims of various fangshi, he sought to record what he had seen and heard, allowing later generations to judge for themselves.

In my view, Sima Qian’s remarks suggest that behind many claims concerning spirits, immortality, and supernatural powers, one can often find a mixture of belief, ritual, politics, and human ambition. His observations remind us that the search for truth requires careful examination and discernment rather than unquestioning acceptance.

我们现代社会，同样有各种各样的“假方士“和骗局，各行各业都有。我们可以把他们叫做”现代假方士“。现代人喜欢追名人，追明星，衣食住行都喜欢追名牌。但是，经济上的庞氏骗局，往往是一些名人或者所谓的商业精英搞出来的，只要挂一个名号，就好行骗。在物品方面，名不符实的例子也很多，现今世界上的假货多不胜数，鱼龙混杂，让人们真假难辨。

Modern society has its own forms of “false fangshi” and deception. Such figures can be found in every profession and every walk of life. We may think of them as modern counterparts of the fraudulent practitioners described in ancient times.

People today are often drawn to fame, celebrities, and well-known brands. From the products they purchase to their choices in everyday life, reputation and public image can exert a powerful influence.

In the financial world, Ponzi schemes and other forms of fraud are often associated with well-known personalities or individuals presented as successful business leaders. A recognizable name or impressive title can make it easier to gain trust and attract followers.

Similar examples can be found in the marketplace. Counterfeit and imitation products are widespread, and cases in which names and labels do not correspond to actual quality are not uncommon. In a world filled with competing claims and appearances, it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the genuine from the false.

并不是2000多年前的汉武帝才迷信鬼神，我们现代人也要反省一下，自己有没有“怪力乱神“的想法。不论是相信宗教，还是相信属相，星座，风水师，营养师，或者各种专家和科学家，不论是什么行业，执迷地相信一种东西却搞不清楚是怎么回事，就是一种迷信。

It was not only Emperor Wu of Han, more than two thousand years ago, who was fascinated by spirits and supernatural claims. We modern people may also ask ourselves whether we hold our own forms of “strange beliefs and superstitions.”

Whether it involves religion, astrology, zodiac signs, feng shui, nutritionists, or various experts and scientists, the issue is not the subject itself, but the tendency to accept something unquestioningly without truly understanding it. Whenever people become blindly attached to a particular belief, authority, or system of thought, without examining it carefully for themselves, a form of superstition may arise.

什么时候能够让泡沫破灭，回归真实的生活？我们现在读《史记》，真是需要感谢太史公在2000多年前就指出“控名责实“的重要性。用现代人流行的语言讲，就是需要“打假”，凡事需要正名求实，摆事实，讲道理。在做人做事方面，需要从我们自己做起，实事求是，不能言过其实，不能吹牛乱说话。

When will the bubble finally burst, allowing us to return to a more authentic way of life?

As we read the Records of the Grand Historian, we cannot help but appreciate Sima Tan’s emphasis, more than two thousand years ago, on the importance of “examining names and verifying realities.” In modern language, we might describe this as the need to expose falsehoods, verify claims, and distinguish appearance from reality. Facts should be examined, evidence should be considered, and claims should be tested rather than accepted blindly.

In both life and work, this principle begins with ourselves. We should strive to be truthful and realistic, avoiding exaggeration, empty promises, and misleading words. To seek truth from facts and to let words correspond with reality remain valuable principles in every age.