The White Horse Dialogue () is a chapter of the Gongsun Longzi, a Warring States period text attributed to Gongsun Long (). In the dialogue, two unnamed speakers debate the proposition "a white horse is not a horse" (, bái màfÃÂi mÃÂ). The text has been the subject of scholarly criticism and commentary for over two thousand years and is considered one of the best-known arguments from the School of Names.
A central interpretive question is the meaning of (fÃÂi, "is not"), which can express either non-identity ("is not the same as") or exclusion from a category ("is not a member of"). The two speakers appear to be operating under different readings of this word, one treating the proposition as a claim about concepts and the other treating it as a claim about animals. Whether the dialogue was intended as serious philosophy, sophistry, or some combination of the two is disputed.
Most of Gongsun's writings have been lost; the received Gongsun Longzi text contains only six of the recorded fourteen original chapters. Parts of the dialogue are dislocated and a small number of words are theorized to have been lost early in the text's transmission history. Thus, some commentators and translators rearrange some sentences for clarity. Classical Chinese does not mark grammatical number. Where 'a horse' or 'a white horse' appears in this translation, the original is equally consistent with a plural or generic reading. The dialogue is between two unnamed speakers:
The dialogue continues with deliberations over colored and colorless horses and whether white and horse can be separated from white horse.
Other Gongsun Longzi chapters discuss "white horse"-related concepts of: jian 'hard; hardness', and bai 'white; whiteness', ming 'name; term', shi 'solid; true, actual; fact, reality', the abstract zhi 'finger; pointing; designation; universal' (like "whiteness"), and the concrete wu 'thing; object; particular' (like "a white horse").
A common misunderstanding is that this paradox arises due to the lack of articles in the Chinese language. While the absence of articles in Chinese can make the interpretation of phrases more challenging, this paradox serves as an entry point for more profound philosophical explorations rather than being a straightforward result of Chinese grammar.
Essentially, this paradox explores the ways in which humans categorize and conceptualize "things" in minds and through language. The fact that all white horses are indeed horses does not imply that the term "horses" refers exclusively to white horses (it also includes horses of other colors, such as brown and black.). This paradox emphasizes the importance of the precision required in the language use and reveals how the complexity of language can lead to unexpected confusions.
According to A. C. Graham, this "A white horse is not a horse" paradox plays upon the ambiguity of whether the 'is' in the statement means:
In other words, the expression "white horse is not horse" is ambiguous between "white horse is not with horse" (true because white horse is more specific than horse), versus "a white horse is not a member of the set of horses" (obviously false). The Advocate in the dialogue is asserting a lack of identity between horses and white horses, while the Objector is interpreting the Advocate's statement as a claim that the category of horses does not include white ones.
Beyond the inherent semantic ambiguities of "A white horse is not a horse," the first line of the White Horse Dialogue obscurely asks ('Can it be that ...?'). This dialogue could be an attempted proof that a white horse is not a horse, or a question if such a statement is possible, or both. Bryan W. Van Norden suggests that "the Advocate is only arguing that 'a white horse is not a horse' be true, given a certain interpretation. He might acknowledge that, in another interpretation, 'a white horse a horse.
An alternative interpretation is offered in Feng Youlan's A History of Chinese Philosophy:
However, there are recent histories of Chinese philosophy that do not subscribe to Feng's interpretation. Other contemporary philosophers and sinologists who have analyzed the dialogue include A. C. Graham, Chad Hansen, Cristoph Harbsmeier, Kirill Ole Thompson, and Bryan W. Van Norden.
In the Chinese philosophical tradition, the White Horse Dialogue's significance is evident from the number of Chinese classic texts directly or indirectly discussing it. The Liezi, which lists and criticizes the paradoxes of Gongsun Long as "perversions of reason and sense", explains "'A white horse is not a horse' because the name diverges from the shape."
Two Zhuangzi chapters ( and ) mock Gongsun Long, and another () combines his zhi 'attribute' and ma 'horse' notions in the same context:
The Mengzi () notes that bai 'white' has different connotations whether one is using it to refer to a graying person (who is worthy of respect because of his or her age) or a white horse (which should be treated like any other animal):
Other early "a white horse is not a horse" references are found in the Hanfeizi (), Mozi (), and Zhanguoce ().