The way of disputation

Introduction

The Lesser Selection is the charter of Mohist disputation, a short, dense text. It opens by stating what disputation is for: to make clear right and wrong, to examine order and disorder, to distinguish same from different, to check names against things, to settle benefit and harm, and to resolve doubt. Disputation is not for winning. It is for getting things clear.

Then the method: "Use names to pick out things, sentences to express meaning, explanations to give reasons; select by kind, infer by kind." And then the fairness rule that 墨辩 is built on: "What you have in yourself, do not blame in others; what you lack in yourself, do not demand of others."

The chapter lists seven forms of argument: "some" (partial claims), supposition, modeling on a standard, analogy, parallel comparison, citing what the opponent already grants, and extension (putting what the opponent denies beside what they accept). Each comes with a warning. Analogies "travel and go astray"; extension pushed too far becomes sophistry.

The closing set of examples rewards slow reading. "A white horse is a horse; riding a white horse is riding a horse." That is "so, and so it follows." "Huo is a person; caring for Huo is caring for a person." Same. But "a robber is a person; caring for a robber is not caring for people... killing a robber is not killing a person." That is "so, but it does not follow." The Mohists used this to reconcile impartial care with punishing robbers. Is it a sleight of hand? That is this week's question. 墨门 / The Mohist Community does not ask you to accept the inference, only to be able to say where it holds and where it does not.

The three tests

The Lesser Selection sets rules for explanation; it is not itself one of the three tests, but it is their instrument. Without the discipline of names and things, none of "grounding," "checking" and "use" can be stated clearly. "Killing a robber is not killing a person" scrapes by on names (robber is a subkind of person) but has trouble with the second test, what people see and hear: what witnesses see is a person being killed. Mozi himself says in Against Aggression I that killing one person is wrong, so this inference was probably written by later Mohists defending penal law. Run the whole line through all three tests this week.

For families

• Play "so, and so it follows": "a white horse is a horse, riding a white horse is riding a horse." Have children invent one that works and one that breaks (a boat is made of wood; riding a boat is riding wood).
• The fairness rule: each family member writes one thing they criticize in others and also do themselves, and posts it on the fridge for a week.
• Explain something with an analogy, then find together where the analogy goes astray.

For chapters

• 20 min reading · 20 min 墨辩 · 10 min 三表 review · 10 min 职 reports.
• Make this week's 墨辩 a "forms drill": given a motion, each group may argue using only one form from the Lesser Selection (analogy, parallel, citing, extension), and the others point out where it goes astray.
• 三表 review: take "killing a robber is not killing a person" through each test in turn and record both the chapter's majority and minority views. Keep both.