ABSTRACT
Few, if any, scholars who have dealt with Ming-Jia (the Logicians or the Name School) in more than a passing remark are able to resist comparing them to Zeno of Elea. There are undoubtedly surface similarities between some of their claims, but are they substantive enough to justify calling the former Zeno-like paradoxes,1 or even just paradoxes? We often see remarks such as “ paradoxes (p) and (u) will be easily recognized by students of Greek Philosophy as identical with Zeno’s third and second argument against motion” (my italics).2 Or “ one is at once struck by the coincidence between the Logicians’ paradoxes and those famous paradoxes in Greek history associated with the name of Zeno of E lea，,3 and later, “ all are concerned with motion, and the last is startlingly similar to Zeno’s，.4 These are strong and explicit claims by top-ranking scholars of Chinese philosophy and civilization.5 But do they hold water? For an answer to this question, I shall, in this essay, carefully sift the evidence.
