299
Comparing Logical Paradoxes through  
the Method of Sublation: Hui Shi, Zeno and  
the “Flying Arrow Problem”
Jana S. ROŠKER*
Abstract
This article addresses some basic methodological problems in the field of transcultural 
post-comparative studies of ancient logic by comparing the famous flying arrow paradox 
of Hui Shi (370–c. 310 BCE) with an apparently similar paradox attributed to Zeno 
of Elea (495–430 BCE). The article proceeds from a general introduction to the ba-
sic framework of semantically determined classical Chinese logic, to an illumination of 
Hui Shi’s specific contributions to the field, and finally to a preliminary explanation that 
emerges from a contrastive analysis of Zeno’s and Hui Shi’s respective views on the prob-
lem of motion and stasis as manifested in their corresponding paradoxes. The contrastive 
analysis, based on an exposition of some basic problems in the field of transcultural meth-
odology and a description of the so-called sublation method, points to the importance 
of considering different paradigms and frames of reference in identifying differences be-
tween apparently similar theses.
Keywords: Hui Shi, Zeno, transcultural sublation, frameworks of reference, form and 
potential, the flying arrow paradox
Primerjava logičnih paradoksov z metodo sublacije: Hui Shi, Zenon in 
»problem leteče puščice«
Izvleček
Pričujoči članek obravnava nekatere osnovne metodološke probleme na področju transkul-
turnih postprimerjalnih študij antične logike skozi optiko kontrastivne analize »paradoksa 
leteče puščice«, ki ga – na navidezno podoben način – interpretirata tako kitajski logik Hui 
Shi (370–ok. 310 pr. n. št.) kot tudi predsokratik Zenon iz Eleje (495–430 pr. n. št). Avtorica 
začne diskusijo s splošno predstavitvijo osnovnega okvira semantično opredeljene klasične 
kitajske logike, nadaljuje z osvetlitvijo Hui Shijevih doprinosov k tej disciplini in se nato 
loti preliminarne razlage tega paradoksa, do katere pride postopno s pomočjo kontrastne 
analize Zenonovih oziroma Hui Shijevih pogledov na problem gibanja in mirovanja, kot 
* Jana S. ROŠKER, Professor of Sinology, Department of Asian Studies, 
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
 Email address: jana.rosker@ff.uni-lj.si
DOI: 10.4312/as.2022.10.2.299-312
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   299 5. 05. 2022   15:46:55
300 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
se prikazuje v njunih topoglednih paradoksih. Kontrastna analiza, ki je osnovana na prika-
zu določenih problemov področja transkulturne metodologije in uporabi tako imenovane 
metode sublacije, izpostavi pomembnost upoštevanja različnih paradigem in referenčnih 
okvirov pri identifikaciji razlik med navidezno podobnimi tezami. 
Ključne besede: Hui Shi, Zenon, transkulturna sublacija, referenčni okviri, forma in po-
tencial, paradoks leteče puščice
Introduction: Classical Chinese Logic and the Nomenalist School 
(Ming jia 名家)1
In the pre-Qin China, logical reasoning was closely connected to language, es-
pecially with respect to semantic issues, and was determined by its tight relation 
to ethics (e.g. Mozi s.d., Jing xia, 155). However, this does not mean that in clas-
sical texts which are not immediately identifiable with metaphysical and ethical 
discourses there were not also forms of logical and methodological thought (Cui 
2021, 105). Although Chinese philosophy developed in connection with ethical 
ideas and metaphysical concepts, there was a close relationship between moral 
and metaphysical thought on the one hand, and logical reasoning on the other.2 
The origins of Chinese logic can be traced back to the earliest known works, such 
as the Book of Changes (Yi jing), while its main development took place during the 
so-called golden age of Chinese philosophy, in the Warring States (Zhan guo) 
period (475–221 BC). This period saw the emergence of the “Hundred Schools 
of Thought”, which include the most influential philosophical discourses, namely 
Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, and Legalism. It was a time of extraordinary in-
tellectual development due to political chaos and constant armed conflict between 
warring states. This period ended with the first unification of China and the rise 
of the totalitarian Qin Dynasty (221–206 BC).
1 This school of thought (in Chinese: Ming jia 名家) is usually translated in English as “The School 
of Names”. However, to facilitate their use in the adjective form, I prefer to translate them with a 
single term, similar to the Mohist, Confucian, Daoist, etc. Schools. Since this school was mainly 
concerned with the problems of names or concepts, the term “Nominalist School” would actual-
ly be most appropriate for this purpose. However, the term nominalism has already been adopted 
by European philosophy, in the context of which it denotes a stream of thought which holds that 
universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material. Since this 
position has nothing to do with the ideas and theories of the School of Names, I have therefore 
decided to translate Ming jia 名家 by the terms Nomenalist School or Nomenalism.
2 The reasons for the decline of the latter in early medieval China are multiple and linked mainly 
to complex historical events and processes that shaped specific social conditions that proved to be 
unfavourable for the evolution of scientific thought and methodologies.
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   300 5. 05. 2022   15:46:55
301Asian Studies X (XXVI), 2 (2022), pp. 299–312
Traditional or classical Chinese logic generally refers to the logical thought de-
veloped in this era (Chmelewski 1965, 88), and these discourses were established 
without outside influences. However, Chinese logicians were part of a small sub-
culture, while logicians in India and Europe were part of the mainstream of intel-
lectual development (Harbsmeier 1998, 7).
Classical Chinese logical thought never elaborated an explicitly systematic and 
comprehensive formulation of the laws of reason, nor did it produce a coherent 
system of symbols for abstract thought. Before the 18th and early 19th centuries, 
Chinese thinkers had rarely encountered a systematic and well-formulated logical 
work. But as Cheng Chung-Ying (1965, 196) points out, this does not mean that 
classical Chinese thought lacked logical depth or consistency.
Logical ideas, concepts and methods were developed mainly within the frame-
work of two intellectual schools, namely the Mohist and the Nomenalist schools 
of thought. During this period, issues such as the relationship between concepts or 
names (ming 名) and realities or objects (shi 實), the criteria of identity (tong 同) 
and difference (yi 異), or the standards of right/true (shi 是) and wrong/false (fei 非) 
formed the objects of inquiry across the philosophical spectrum regardless of ide-
ological orientation (Kurtz 2011, 3). Chinese interest in logical problems grew out 
of the methodology of debates or disputations. The earliest evidence of this interest 
can be found among the so-called dialecticians or debaters (bianzhe 辯者), whose 
discourses were primarily concerned with theories of names (mingxue 名學), which 
led them to become known as the “School of Names” (Ming jia 名家). The leading 
figures of this heterogeneous current were Hui Shi 惠施 (ca. 370–310 BCE), who 
is the main subject of this paper, and Gongsun Long 公孫龍 (ca. 320–250 BCE), 
who was famous for the logical defence of his white horse paradox, which claimed 
that “white horses were not horses” (Bai ma fei ma 白馬非馬).
These discourses made important contributions to logic, together with the works 
of the “later Mohists” (Houqi Mojia 後期墨家), who—among other issues—elab-
orated theories of argumentation (bianxue 辯學). They represented a current of 
the school of Mo Di 墨翟, whose teachings were collected in the Mozi 墨子 
which includes a series of brief definitions and explanations outlining procedures 
for determining the validity of conflicting assertions, a theory of description, and 
an inventory of “acceptable” (ke 可) links between consecutive statements.
Hui Shi, his Life and Work, and his Transcultural Significance
As mentioned earlier, I will focus here on the work of Hui Shi 惠施 (ca. 370–
310 BCE), who is one of the most important representatives of the Nomenalist 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   301 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
302 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
current. This article provides both a general introduction to his philosophical ide-
as and concepts and a more detailed analysis and interpretation of his theory of 
the unity of identity and difference. The present interpretation takes as its starting 
point Hui Shi’s view of allegedly paradoxical nature of this unity. But before we 
plunge into the deep currents of his logical thought, let us introduce the funda-
mental features and the social, as well as ideational contexts of his life and work.
Hui Shi was a contemporary and friend of Zhuangzi and a minister in the gov-
ernment of the Song State. He was one of the most famous Nomenalists, and 
was best known for his allegedly sophistical paradoxes, by which he attempted to 
express the absolute relativity of existence appearing in the mutual relations and 
shared contexts of absoluteness and relativeness. In general, we can say that Hui 
Shi’s teaching, which bears some similarity to Daoist philosophy, is rooted in a 
theory of relativity that extends a fundamentally atomistic view of space and time. 
However, if we consider its embeddedness in the dynamic frame of reference of 
Chinese philosophy and logic, this plurality of relative aspects of reality can be 
seen as part of an all-encompassing, unified absoluteness of existence. For similar 
reasons, he also valorized the then definition of identity and difference by plac-
ing the two concepts within a dynamic, unified framework. In this paper, we will 
explore, among other things, the structural connection between these two forms 
of unity.
Hui Shi must have been a prolific writer, for Zhuangzi remembers him as “very 
versatile, as his works could fill five carts3” (Zhuangzi s.d. Tianxia, Za pian, 7). Un-
fortunately, most of the works have been lost; at the time of the Han dynasty (206 
BC–220), according to the commentary in Liu Xin’s 劉歆 encyclopaedia Han shu 
漢書, only one chapter of the work bearing Hui Shi’s name had survived. Today, 
only some fragments of his philosophical positions remain. The historiography 
of reception and interpretation of this undoubtedly extremely interesting philos-
opher is limited to his well-known “Ten Postulates of all that exists” (Wanwu shi 
shi 萬物十事) and a few individual sentences (mostly paradoxically constructed) 
without explicit context, which are preserved in the various commentaries of his 
contemporaries and successors (especially in the works of Zhuangzi and Xunzi).
From a transcultural perspective, it is most interesting that many of these frag-
ments are strongly reminiscent of the sayings of Zeno from the Eleatic school. 
This makes Hui Shi an interesting thinker not only in the context of classical 
Chinese logic, but also in terms of cross-cultural comparisons, especially—as we 
will see later—when we analyse the similarities between Zeno and Hui Shi from 
the perspective of transcultural studies.
3 惠施多方, 其書五車.
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   302 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
303Asian Studies X (XXVI), 2 (2022), pp. 299–312
It is clear from his “Postulates” that Hui Shi derives his theorems from the as-
sumption of the organic and structural interconnectedness of everything that 
exists. Within the framework of the holistic worldview already defined in the 
proto-philosophical classics and thus shared by most classical, especially Daoist, 
philosophers, Hui Shi focuses, among other things, on the relationship between 
time and space as an expression of the relativistic structured whole, for example:
If we take a stick one chi’s length and cut off half of it every day, we shall 
never come to the end of it. (ibid.)
一尺之棰, 日取其半, 萬世不竭.
We find the same thought in Zeno of Elea’s story of Achilles and “the slower”4: 
The slower runner will never be overtaken by the swiftest, since the pur-
suer must first reach the point from which the pursued started, and so the 
slower must always be ahead. (cf. Lee 1967, 51)
Achilles can never reach the slower runner, because every time he reaches the 
place where the slower stood a moment before, it has already moved a little fur-
ther. This proposition is based upon the presumption that the real inseparability 
of pure time and space includes the assumption about the impossibility of real 
motion. Indeed, if there would be motion, it should actually be possible to traverse 
an infinity of positions in a finite time (Philoponus, cf. Lee 1967, 47)
The apparent similarity of the two theses lies in the fact that the two arguments 
above are both based on the assumption that spatial length is not reducible to 
minimal units, but is infinitely reducible. However, as we will see later, Zeno and 
Hui Shi wanted to prove different ideas by emphasizing such a relationship be-
tween finiteness and infinity.
From his “Ten Postulates of all that exists” (Wanwu shi shi 萬物十事), it is clear 
that Hui Shi derives his theorems from the assumption of the organic and struc-
tural connection of all that exists. Zeno also assumes the inseparable intercon-
nectedness of everything that exists. But unlike Hui Shi, he sees this existential 
interconnectedness as the expression of an undivided and unchanging wholeness. 
This fundamental difference between the basic paradigms and the corresponding 
viewpoints advocated by these two ancient thinkers can be demonstrated by a 
contrasting analysis of their respective views on the so-called “problem of the fly-
ing arrow”. In what follows, I will attempt to conduct such an analysis by applying 
4 The “slower” was in later antiquity renamed as a turtle, and thus Zeno’s story is mainly known as 
the story about Achilles and the turtle. 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   303 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
304 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
the method of transcultural sublation. Since this is a new method, not yet well 
known in international academia, I will first present its theoretical background, its 
main features, its function and the main principles of its application. 
Post-comparative Approaches and the Method of Transcultural 
Sublation
Let us begin by clarifying the terms cross-cultural, intercultural, and transcultural. 
Cross-cultural studies refer to different cultures or the comparison between them 
in a very general sense, i.e., crossing the boundaries of one culture and entering 
discourses shaped by another. Interculturality is a more specific type of communi-
cation or interaction between different intellectual, linguistic, and cognitive tradi-
tions, where the differences in cultures and the corresponding linguistic structures 
have a decisive influence on the formation of meaning. In this sense, intercultural 
interactions certainly involve the process of transferring meanings, implications, 
and connotations between different cultures. Nevertheless, numerous current the-
orists criticize the very notion of cross- or interculturality with its problematic 
embedding in a static and one-dimensional understanding of cultures as fixed 
“realms”, “spheres”, or “islands”. In such a view, the very idea of culture is defined 
by a separatist, essentialist, and isolating character. Therefore, many contemporary 
scholars argue instead for a transcultural approach, because the prefix “trans-” 
contained in the concept of transculturality suggests that it is capable of tran-
scending the boundaries and limitations of a fixed and static concept of culture. 
In this sense, it suggests the possibility of going beyond the fragmentation and 
separation of different cultures and philosophies (Silius 2020, 276) to create a 
more comprehensive and enriching approach to philosophy.
Transcultural approaches therefore aim at overcoming the outdated, static and 
immobile concept of culture. This does not mean, however, that there is no cul-
ture. It is still a real thing, like language, for example. Both are dynamic, histor-
ically grown and constantly changing entities without fixed borders. Therefore, 
the ontological assumption underlying the concept of culture does not necessarily 
refer to a metaphysics of an abstract substantial being. Here, the concept of culture 
is understood to be based on a metaphysics of relations.
Now, on the basis of this reflection, let us return to our basic question, which 
is linked to problems encountered by Western—or Western-trained—scholars 
who are dealing with Chinese philosophy and logic. From the transcultural point 
of view, working in Chinese logic and interpreting classical Chinese texts has 
much to do with transferring meanings across different languages and patterns of 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   304 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
305Asian Studies X (XXVI), 2 (2022), pp. 299–312
understanding. But as we all know, concepts and categories cannot be simply and 
directly transferred from one socio-cultural context into another. The semantic 
connotations by which they are defined often simply do not overlap. Therefore, 
we must consider the referential frameworks into which they are embedded.5
Knowledge of the specific frame of reference that has emerged in the historical 
development of Chinese philosophy is of paramount importance in order to inter-
pret certain concepts and transfer them into the framework of global philosophy. 
In this context, the methods of discursive translations are of utmost importance. 
For translations are necessarily also interpretations of the multiple connotations 
of concepts and categories embedded in different semantic and referential net-
works. Moreover, translations of different logical systems that belong to different 
semantic frameworks, different linguistic structures and different methodological 
paradigms, can never be limited to merely translating one language into another. 
They must also involve the “translation” or transposition of different discourses, 
as well as interpretations of individual textual and linguistic structures, categories, 
concepts, and evaluation criteria that differ according to the corresponding soci-
ocultural contexts.
The problem of transferring meanings, however, goes even further and also con-
cerns the concept of transcultural philosophical comparisons.6 Many scholars see 
5 Theories that have been historically developed in different socio-political traditions and linguistic 
areas also produce different referential frameworks, which are, on the other hand, linked to differ-
ent methodologies applied in the process of perceiving, understanding and interpreting reality. A 
referential framework in this sense can be defined as a relational structure of concepts, categories, 
terms, and ideas, which are applied in the cognitive processing of the objects of comprehension. It 
also includes paradigms and perspectives that influence and define the comprehension and eval-
uation of particular semantic elements within this structure, as well as the structure as a whole. In 
other words, it defines every concept applied in the theory, and determines its specific semantic 
connotations. And in the same way, it defines the relations between concrete notions, as well as the 
entire network of these relations as such. Here, we start from the assumption that using different 
languages and different patterns of thought associated with their individual grammatical structures, 
different cultures continuously create different frames of reference that assume an influential role 
in human understanding and interpretation of a given reality. Thus, frames of reference are com-
prehensive instruments that filter perceptions and create meanings. Different reference frames can 
lead to different descriptions and interpretations of one and the same objective reality. For a more 
detailed explanation of the notion see Rošker (2021). 
6 Comparative methods are especially important to Western researchers of Chinese philosophy. 
These scholars have been educated and socialized in cultures that have shaped philosophical dis-
courses embedded in frames of reference that differ from those developed in Chinese cultural-lin-
guistic circles. Thus, when we study and examine Chinese philosophical discourses, we are con-
stantly confronted with the need to compare certain concepts and categories developed in the 
Chinese tradition with certain ideas, methods, and categories prevalent in our own traditions of 
thought. Although most of the resulting comparisons are made on an unconscious level, it is pre-
cisely the method of comparison still has a decisive influence on our work.
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   305 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
306 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
the main problem of such comparisons in the fact that we have a “unifying meth-
odology and one single philosophical language, and apply it on culturally concrete, 
different materials”. In my view, however the core problem is much deeper and 
much more complex, because the methodology in question is a system underlying 
one of the philosophies under comparison, namely the Western one. There is no 
third, “objective” methodology. The tertium comparationis is thus determined by 
one of the two comparanda, which commonly belongs to the methodology and 
terminology of Western philosophy.
Based on thorough reflection and analysis of such issues inherent in traditional 
comparative procedures, many scholars have elaborated new methodological tools 
that could overcome such problematic approaches. Such experimentalisms and 
new models of transcultural philosophizing have been termed post-comparative 
philosophies. These methods aim to develop new modes of transcultural philos-
ophizing rather than doing traditional comparative philosophy. In other words, 
they are based upon procedures of “conceptual comparing” rather than merely 
“comparing concepts”. This challenging idea is based upon a self-critical account 
of comparative philosophy that has been long overdue. Two of the most widely 
known methods of such post-comparative approaches are denoted the philosophy 
of fusion and philosophy of synthesis, respectively. In my view, each of them has 
certain flaws, but due to space limitations I will not elaborate on this critique in 
this paper.7 Instead, I will propose another method that can be implemented in 
the framework of post-comparative approaches, i.e. the method of transcultural 
sublation. 
Although similar to the term synthesis, “sublation” also forms a part of Hegelian 
lines of thought and could hence be problematic, it is still much less deflated than 
the concept of synthesis. On the other hand, its Latin origin encompasses all three 
notions that are of crucial importance for any process of creating something new 
from interactions between two or more different objects or phenomena. In this 
philosophical sense it has the three connotations of eliminating, preserving and 
arising. Besides, in contrast to “synthesis”, or “fusion”, the notion of “sublation” 
refers to a process rather than a stage.
This approach is not only about identifying differences and similarities between 
two or more philosophical discourses. With this method, certain aspects derived 
from philosophies of different cultures can be used contrastively as inspirations 
for our own philosophizing. In this sense, the tension between those contrastive 
aspects of philosophical perception and interpretation of reality can help us raise 
7 My critical evaluation of both fusion and synthesis philosophy can be found in my recent book on 
the methodology of Chinese philosophy (see Rošker 2021). 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   306 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
307Asian Studies X (XXVI), 2 (2022), pp. 299–312
our ideas to a new level and provide new insights by preserving certain elements of 
both aspects and eliminating others. In this way, it is possible to transcend the stat-
ic notions of cultures in which the philosophies under comparison were embedded.
The basic structure of the sublation process is based on the following five steps 
or stages:
• Step 1: Similarities – first we identify the similarities of the two 
comparanda. 
• Step 2: Differences – then we identify the differences between them 
by considering the main paradigms of the respective frames of refer-
ence to which they belong. 
• Step 3: Dialectic of eliminating and preserving – in the next step we 
eliminate certain aspects of the two comparanda and preserve certain 
other elements. This decision does not arise automatically from the 
internal structure of dialectical thinking (as, for example, in Hegelian 
dialectics), but is the result of a conscious choice made on the basis 
of inspiration arising from the tension between the differences iden-
tified in Step 2. 
• Step 4: Sublation – the process established in steps 1–3 leads us to a 
cognitive shift that is the condition for the possibility of the realiza-
tion of step 5. 
• Step 5: New insight – this new insight is the result of the shift accom-
plished in step 4. This new insight can manifest itself in one or more 
new ideas, propositions or theses.
In the following I will demonstrate the operation of this method by means of a 
contrastive analysis of two comparanda belonging to different cultures, namely 
Zeno’s and Hui Shi’s theses on the flying arrow problem.
Zeno’s and Hui Shi’s View of the Flying Arrow Problem
Let us now thus take a closer look at two other famous theorems of Zeno and Hui 
Shi, which at first sight are also very similar, although the two scholars were sepa-
rated by great distances. Both are concerned with the observation and mechanics 
of flying arrows, i.e. with the question whether they move or not.
Step 1: We will proceed from similarities. The two similar theses to be compared 
are, first, Zeno’s assumption that a flying arrow does not move, and, second, Hui 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   307 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
308 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
Shi’s assertion that—at a given time—a flying arrow does not move but does not 
stand still either. Let us begin with Zeno. His assumption that there can be no 
motion also led him to believe that the “flying arrow is at rest” (Philoponus, cf. 
Lee 1967, 53).
Hui Shi discovered something that is, at first glance, quite similar:
The problem with the tip of the flying arrow is that there is a time when 
it does not move, nor does it stand still. (Zhuangzi s.t. Tianxia, Za pian, 7)
鏃矢之疾,而有不行不止之時.
Actually, the similarity of the two statements is quite superficial, for it only rests 
on the fact that both scholars aim to investigate the spatial, temporal and mechan-
ical state of a flying arrow, and on the fact that their arguments differ from what 
we commonly assume about the state of flying arrows. But if the similarity is only 
apparent, where are the differences?
Step 2: The differences between the two arguments can be identified and ex-
plained by considering the referential framework in which each is embedded. Let 
us now take a look at the differences between the two propositions, from such a 
perspective. 
Zeno starts from a referential framework whose basic paradigm is the unchang-
ing, i.e. static, nature of being. Hui Shi’s paradox, on the other hand, is embedded 
in the dynamic framework of change.
Zeno thoughts that since every object or entity is a form of being identical with 
itself, they are all necessarily immutable and static. Zeno was a faithful disciple of 
Parmenides, who thus sought to confirm his teacher’s theory that reality is one, 
indivisible, and immovable. With this view Zeno explained the impossibility of 
change and motion. Thus, for any form of being in this totality, there can be nei-
ther a change in space nor a change in time. Therefore, the motion of the flying 
arrow is in reality the sum of innumerable static sections of space; it is not motion. 
In this way, Zeno actually denies the continuity of motion by dividing it into a 
series of successive, mutually isolated sequences of static space.
For Hui Shi, on the other hand, every object or entity has a multifaceted nature 
and can change depending on the point of observance, which is always relative. 
Hui Shi’s presumption is relativistic, which means that his basic paradigm, i.e. the 
paradigm of change and motion, is also not absolute. It can only exist in a dialec-
tical relation with stasis. According to the commentaries of Sima Biao (249– 306) 
from the Jin dynasty, Hui Shi here proceeds from the two basic properties of the 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   308 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
309Asian Studies X (XXVI), 2 (2022), pp. 299–312
arrow, namely its form (xing 形) and its potential (shi 势)8. While the form is 
fixed and unchangeable, and thus unmovable in the time and space of the flying 
arrow, its potential causes its movement. Hence, there is a time in which the flying 
arrow is at rest and, simultaneously, in motion.9
Step 3: Now we proceed to the next phase of our reasoning, i.e. to the dialec-
tic of eliminating and preserving particular aspects or views included in the two 
comparanda. In this sense, Hui Shi’s proposition includes and expands on Zeno’s 
argument, but due to its insufficiency it also negates it. Zeno argues the flying 
arrow stands still. In Hui Shi’s view, it does not stand still, (although it also doesn’t 
move). What do we preserve and what do we eliminate in this dialectic of con-
flicting statements?
Indeed, from the viewpoint of form and potential, the flying arrow is at rest. How-
ever, it is also not at rest, because it is moving. In order to make room for a new 
understanding of the fundamental question of the existence and nature of motion, 
we decide to start from the processual view, which is closer to Hui Shi’s theory. 
The reason for this decision is that dynamic flow is wider and leaves us more 
space for identifying new aspects of the basic question. The processual view can 
include both static and moving phases, whereas the unmovable and unchangeable 
being cannot include any motion. In other words, the dynamic can include the 
static, but not vice versa. Thus, we eliminate Zeno’s basic presumption, according 
8 Sima Biao wrote: “形分止，势分行；形分明者行迟，势分明者行疾。目明无形，分无
所止，则其疾无间。矢疾而有间者，中有止也，质薄而可离，中有无及者也.” (Form de-
notes standstill, and force (tendency) denotes movement. When we cannot perceive the form of 
the arrow with our eyes because individual static sequences cannot be differentiated from one an-
other, there is a problem of an absence of intermediacy. The problem with the intermediacy with 
the flying arrow is, again, that there are sequences of standing still in-between, which it can be iso-
lated despite of their tiny duration. And this in-between is endless. (Sima Biao, cf Wang Jisheng 
2021, 1)) This form and potential argument is reminiscent of Jin Yuelin’s (1895–1984) ontology, 
because his interpretation of the ultimate cosmic principle dao 道 is likewise based upon a differen-
tiation between form and potential, although he denotes the two terms with different terms: While 
Sima calls form xing 形 and potential shi 势, Jin denotes form shi 势 and potential neng 能 (see 
Jin 1997, 186–239).
9 However, Sima Biao’s form and potential argument is not the only valid interpretation that can be 
made in consideration of Hui Shi’s relativist view. In a private correspondence, Dan Lusthaus, for 
instance, has pointed out another possible explanation, which proceeds from the tip (or the head) 
of the flying arrow. It is not coincidental that the relativist Hui Shi speaks about the arrowhead and 
not simply about the arrow. The reason the arrowhead (zushi 鏃矢)—and not just the arrow—is at 
the same time not moving and not at rest, is because of what it is relative to: “Relative to the rest 
of the arrow, it is fixed and not moving from its position on the arrow; in terms of it being on an 
arrow that is in flight, it is moving. His claim could be expressed in its inverse as well—the arrow 
head is both moving and at rest. There is nothing metaphysical about his observation. It is entirely 
practical and concrete.” (Dan Lusthaus, Academia.edu. message to author, January 20, 2022)
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   309 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
310 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
to which there can be no movement, because entities of being that are identifiable 
with themselves cannot occupy different spaces. Instead, we preserve the pro-
cessual presumption, according to which a flying arrow is—from the perspective 
of its potential—moving, but from the perspective of its form, it simultaneously 
stands still.
Step 4: The sublation phase starts from the viewpoint that the above-stated per-
spective is not an exhaustive explanation of Hui Shi’s flying arrow proposition, 
because he does not say that there is a time in which the flying arrow is simulta-
neously moving and at a standstill. Actually, he claims the opposite, namely that 
there is a time in which a flying arrow is simultaneously not moving and not 
standing still. There is tension between these opposing notions, and this tension 
can lead us to a shift, a sublation of the two arguments.
Thus, according to the form and potential argument, the flying arrow moves and 
stands still at the same time. However, as mentioned above, this is not what Hui 
Shi explicitly says, for he states the opposite. But it is clear that we might see a 
new perspective in Hui Shi’s flying arrow argument if we could explicitly connect 
the two perspectives.
Therefore, we will sublate the argument of simultaneous movement and stasis in 
order to arrive at Hui Shi’s opposite statement. This can be done when we place 
the first argument in the framework of Mohist philosophy, or, more concretely, in 
its explanation of the concept of antinomy using the example of a herd contain-
ing two kinds of animals, namely oxen and horses. A herd which simultaneously 
includes oxen and horses cannot be called a herd of oxen, nor a herd of hors-
es. Considering and re-applying this formal type of antinomy, the following can 
analogously be claimed: if there is a time in which there is simultaneously move-
ment and stasis, this is also a time which is not determined by (pure) movement 
and neither by (pure) stasis. In other words, the reason because of which such time 
is a moment in which the flying arrow is not in movement nor standing still is 
precisely because that very same moment comprises both movement and stasis, 
and can thus not be reduced to either of them. It is a moment in time in which 
there is no movement and no stasis.
Step 5: In this way, the use of the sublation method has led us to a new re-inter-
pretation of Hui Shi’s flying arrow paradox. This re-interpretation is based upon 
a threefold insight. This threefold insight is structured in the following way:
A) The apparent similarity of Zeno’s and Hui Shi’s flying arrow argu-
ments is only superficial, because they are both embedded in differ-
ent referential frameworks.
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   310 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
311Asian Studies X (XXVI), 2 (2022), pp. 299–312
B) The processual nature of Hui Shi’s framework of reference leads us 
to the form and potential argument, which allows for simultaneous 
movement and stasis.
C) Simultaneous movement and stasis can be transferred into simulta-
neous non-movement and non-stasis by consideration of the Mohist 
concept of antinomy.
Conclusion
I hope this demonstration has helped us to understand the meaning and pro-
cess of the so-called sublation method. The similarities identified went beyond 
the boundaries of the respective cultural contexts in which they were originally 
developed. The identification of the differences did not proceed from the search 
for differences in the cultural backgrounds, but from different paradigms deter-
mined by the two frames of reference in which the respective sentences were 
developed. In this way, it is possible to overcome the static notions of cultures 
in which the philosophies being compared were embedded. In other words, the 
sublation method can help us overcome the time and space that determine certain 
notions shaped by different cultural discourses.
In addition, this paper has also shown that Hui Shi was a kind of logician con-
cerned mainly with the metaphysical foundations of logical discourses rather than 
with their purely formal principles.10 In this sense, it is clear that his contribution 
to the specific character of classical Chinese logical thought was of paramount 
importance. Indeed, he showed that none of the seemingly isolated propositions 
such as form and potential––any more than the notions of stillstand and mo-
tion––can function as independent or isolated concepts in the immanence of real, 
concrete life, which is inherently relational and governed by ceaseless change.
Acknowledgements 
The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research 
Agency (ARRS) in the framework of the research core funding Asian Languages 
and Cultures (P6-0243) and in the scope of the research project N6-0161 (Com-
plementary scheme) Humanism in Intercultural Perspective: Europe and China. 
10 These metaphysical foundations were often incompatible with formal logic, in which antagonisms 
such as that between static and dynamic qualities are not valid (see Vrhovski 2021, 87).
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   311 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56
312 Jana S. ROŠKER: Comparing Logical Paradoxes through the Method of Sublation...
References
Cheng, Chung-Ying. 1965. “Inquiries into Classical Chinese Logic.” Philosophy 
East and West 15 (3–4): 195–216.
Chmelewski, Janusz. 1965. “Notes on Early Chinese Logic.” Rocznik orientalistyc-
ny 28 (2): 87–111.
Cui, Qingtian. 2021. “Researching the History of Chinese Logic: The Role of 
Wen Gongyi in the Establishment of New Methodologies.” Asian Studies 9 
(2): 105–20. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2021.9.2.105-120.
Harbsmeier, Christoph. 1998. “Language and Logic.” In Science and Civilization 
in China, edited by Joseph Needham, vol. 7, part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.
Jin, Yuelin 金岳霖. 1997. Jin Yuelin wenji 金岳霖文集 (Collected Works of Jin 
Yuelin). Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chuban she.
Kurz, Joachim. 2011. The Discovery of Chinese Logic. Boston: Brill.
Lee, Henry Desmond Prichard. 1967. Zeno of Elea. A Text, with Translations and 
Notes. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Lusthaus, Dan. 2022. Re: “On Huishi and Zeno—The Flying Arrow.” Academ-
ia.edu. message to author, January 20, 2022. https://www.academia.edu/
Messages?from_navbar=true.
Mozi. s.d. In Chinese Text Project. Pre-Qin and Han. Accessed November 23, 
2021. https://ctext.org/mozi. 
Rošker, Jana S. 2021. Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology. London: 
Bloomsbury.
Silius, Vytis. 2020. “Diversifying Academic Philosophy: The Post-Compara-
tive Turn and Transculturalism.” Asian Studies 8 (2): 257–80. doi: 10.4312/
as.2020.8.2.257-280.
Vrhovski, Jan. 2021. “A Few Important Landmarks in the Chinese Debates on 
Dialectical and Formal Logic from the 1930s.” Asian Studies 9 (2): 81–103. 
https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2021.9.2.81-103.
Wang, Jisheng 王吉盛. 2021. Zhongguo zhexiue mingti daquan. 中国哲学的
命题大全. (The Encyclopedia of Propositions in Chinese Philosophy). Ac-
cessed January 15, 2022. http://chinese.zhexue.org/philosophy/18292.
Zhuangzi. s.d. In Chinese Text Project. Pre-Qin and Han. Accessed November 23, 
2021. https://ctext.org/zhuangzi. 
Azijske_studije_2022_2_FINAL.indd   312 5. 05. 2022   15:46:56