Traditional Chinese Dialectic

[Anonymous No.6571905]

I'm looking for academic texts that explain the method of traditional Chinese dialectic. Please link to English texts where applicable.

In mathematics we build a strict tautology from the ground up. From this valued vantage point, I see western dialectic as the illusion of sugar as one mills salt.

The incessant scientific imperative to prove all manner of logical assumptions at its heart contains an implicit assumption that in the absence of proof there can be no application of logic.

I therefore reject logic in the absence of tautology. Chinese Dialectic is the only system of thought that I have encountered that actually acknowledges the state of the world as it is, not as it must be.

[Anonymous No.6571927]

Doctrine of the Mean
I Ching
The Analects and the Daodejing
Mencius
Han Feizi
Xunzi

Chinese dialectic isn't really as useful as Western dialectic, to be honest, unless you want to become a triad with Earth and Heaven.

[Anonymous No.6571934]

>>6571927
And Guangzi.

[Anonymous No.6571996]

>>6571927

>Chinese dialectic isn't really as useful as Western dialectic

Can you please explain why? I'll pose an example:

Argument A references 70% of causal relationships.

Argument B references 80% of causal relationships.

But in aggregate, both arguments reference 95% of causal relationships. Both claim to be "true," but from our vantage point we know this to be strictly false.

This being the West, we cannot simply aggregate truths. We must pick either A or B. So which do you pick?

Do you choose the argument that references the most causal relationships (B)?

Do you choose the argument that reference the most important causal relationships?

[Anonymous No.6572307]

Bamp