近代以来,以据西释中为核心的名辩逻辑化,把名辩话语的本质勘定为中国本土逻辑,视名辩为西方传统逻辑在中国的等同物。这一研究进路不仅窄化了名辩的丰富内涵,而且造成名辩与逻辑之间的牵强比附。有鉴于此,崔清田提出名辩与逻辑的比较研究必须以对二者的历史分析与文化诠释为前提。“据西释中”和“历史分析与文化诠释”的结合,体现了科学的比较法是类比与对比的统一。对名辩进行矛盾分析(对比)内在地要求开展多学科的综合研究以全面把握名辩的多重内涵,因而有可能达致一种对于名辩的更好理解。 Since modern times, based on the rhetoric logic centered on the Western interpretation, the essence of the rhetorical discourse has been delineated as the indigenous logic of China. It is regarded as the equivalent of Western traditional logic in China. This research approach not only narrows the rich connotation of rhetoric, but also makes the rhetoric and logic far-fetched. In view of this, Cui Qingtian proposed a comparative study of rhetoric and logic must be based on the historical analysis of both the cultural premise. The combination of “Western interpretation” and “historical analysis and cultural interpretation” shows that scientific comparative law is the unity of analogy and contrast. A paradoxical analysis (comparison) of the rhetorical inherently requires a multidisciplinary and comprehensive study to fully grasp the multiple meanings of the rhetoric, thereby making it possible to achieve a better understanding of the rhetoric.