부산대학교 도서관

The article examines the similarities and differences of the 'Three Criteria' so as to sort out the argumentation genealogy of the 'Against Fate' triad. Based on Angus Charles Graham's study on dislocation, it first discovers that there are two kinds of the 'the source': 'the writings of the former kings' in the 'Against Fate II' and 'the truth of the evidence of the eyes and ears of the common people below' in the 'Against Fate I.' The argument of the former is extremely strict and is difficult in practice; that of the latter is more effective than the former because no one can describe the appearance of fate. In addition, since both the two kinds of 'the source' are unsuitable for use on the subject of anti-fatalism to prove about their 'nonexistence,' they are discarded in the 'Against Fate III.' The article's second discovery is that the boundary between 'the application' and 'the foundation' in the 'Against Fate II' is very clear though both quote historical facts. As for the difference between 'the application' and 'the source,' it does not depend on whether or not ancient books are cited, but on which definition the actual argument conforms to. The former lists the chaos caused when 'fatalism' is applied to government policy and criticizes the falsehood of fatalism. The latter takes 'the affairs of the sage kings' as the model which positively highlights whether order or chaos world lies in the effort rather than fate. 'The application' in the 'Against Fate I' continues to refute 'fatalists' and also proposes a plan to replace fatalism. The 'Against Fate III' further uses the method of 'contrasting two hypothetical situations' to compare the possible situations when the two opposing concepts 'diligence' and 'fate' are implemented in daily life. By viewing 'the source' and 'the application' integratively, the article draws an argumentation genealogy to the requirement of effective argumentation: first 'Against Fate II,' then 'Against Fate I,' and finally 'Against Fate III.'