Gaozi said, “The music of the Yu era is superior to the music of the King Wen era.”
Mencius asked, “What makes you say that?”
Gaozi replied, “Based on the worn-out bell clapper.”
Mencius said, “How is that sufficient evidence? Are the deep ruts at the city gate caused merely by the strength of the two horses pulling the carriage?”
Note
This passage from the Jin Xin II chapter of the Mencius is a classic dialogue between teacher and student regarding “logical argumentation” and “cognitive fallacies.” Drawing on historical context and Confucian classics, we can understand its underlying thought through the following dimensions:
- Cognitive Fallacy and Attribution Error: “Based on the Worn-Out Bell Clapper”
Seeing that the bell clapper (“zhui”) from the Yu era was severely worn out (“li” originally means insect bites, here describing the appearance of severe wear and peeling), Gaozi subjectively concluded that the music of the Yu era was better and more valued than that of the King Wen era. This reflects a typical logical fallacy: mistakenly attributing “the accumulation of time” to the “absolute quality of an object.” Gaozi only saw the superficial appearance, ignoring the inevitable physical traces left on cultural relics over a long period. - Mencius’ Logical Rebuttal and Analogical Argument: “Are the Deep Ruts at the City Gate Caused Merely by the Strength of the Two Horses?”
Faced with his disciple’s fallacy, Mencius did not deny it directly but used a highly ingenious analogy. He asked rhetorically: Are the ruts at the city gate so deep just because the two horses pulling the carriage have extraordinary strength? Obviously not; it is because too many carriages have passed there over thousands of years. Mencius used this to point out precisely: the severe wear on the bell clapper is simply because it is much older than the instruments of the King Wen era and has been struck more times, not because its artistic level is higher. This demonstrates Mencius’ rigorous logical reasoning ability. - The Rational Spirit of “Seeking Truth from Facts” in Confucian Scholarship
This dialogue transcends mere musical evaluation and rises to the height of scholarly methodology. Mencius taught his disciples that when evaluating historical objects or making academic arguments, one must strip away the filter of time, explore the true causal relationships behind things, and never jump to conclusions based solely on superficial, isolated evidence. This rational spirit of not blindly following others, emphasizing logic, and demanding empirical evidence is a highly precious embryonic form of science within Confucian thought.
高子曰：“禹之声，尚文王之声。”孟子曰：“何以言之？”
曰：“以追蠡。”曰：“是奚足哉？城门之轨，两马之力与？”
Leave a Reply