Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?
Advocate: It can.
Objector: How?
Advocate: "Horse" is that by means of which one names the shape. "White" is that by means of which one names the color. What names the color is not what names the shape. Hence, I say that a white horse is not a horse.
Objector: If there are white horses, one cannot say that there are no horses. If one cannot say that there are no horses, doesn't that mean that there are horses? For there to be white horses is for there to be horses. How could it be that the white ones are not horses?
Advocate: If one wants a horse, that extends to a yellow or black horse. But if one wants a white horse, that does not extend to a yellow or black horse. Suppose that a white horse were a horse. Then what one wants (the two cases ) would be the same. If what one wants were the same, then a white () would not differ from a horse. If what one wants does not differ, then how is it that a yellow or black horse is acceptable in one case and unacceptable in the other case? It is clear that acceptable and unacceptable are mutually contrary. Hence, yellow and black horses are the same (that, if there are yellow or black horses ), one can respond that there are horses, but one cannot respond that there are white horses. Thus, it is evident that a white horse is not a horse.〔Gongsun Longzi. (2005). 〕