You're viewing as a guest. Sign in to save progress and pick up where you left off.
Step 3 of 6~8 min read~29 min left
The White Horse Dialogue
Read Gongsun Long's core argument in his own words.
“Objector: Is it correct to say that a white horse is not a horse? Advocate: It is correct. Objector: How? Advocate: 'Horse' is what is used to name the shape. 'White' is what is used to name the color. What names the color is not what names the shape. Therefore I say a white horse is not a horse. ... Advocate: If one wants horses, that extends to yellow or black horses. But if one wants white horses, that does not extend to yellow or black horses. Suppose white horses were horses. Then what one wants would be the same in both cases. If what one wants were the same, then white would be no different from horse. If white were no different from horse, then why would one call them yellow or black horses in one case and not the other? Clearly what is not compatible is contradictory. Yellow or black horses can each respond [to the call for] horses, but cannot respond [to the call for] white horses. If white horses were horses, then the responses would be the same. Since the responses are not the same, white horses are not horses. — Gongsun Long, Gongsun Longzi, '==Baima lun==' (Discourse on White Horse), c. 3rd century BCE, trans. A. C. Graham (adapted)”