Concerning that old fictional Chinese encyclopedia

Jorge Luis Borges originally wrote this bit, claiming that "a certain Chinese encyclopedia tells us that animals are divided into:

a) belonging to the Emperor,

b) embalmed,

c) tame,

d) sucking pigs,

e) sirens,

f) fabulous,

g) stray dogs,

h) included in the present classification,

i) frenzied,

j) innumerable,

k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,

l) et cetera,

m) having just broken the water pitcher,

n) that from a long way off look like flies."

Probably one of the most immediate reactions to this (admittedly fictional) list is that it is completely irrational, illogical and nonsensical. However, one should be careful to call anything arbitrary, let alone irrational or illogical. Without knowing the purpose, principles, assumptions and other reasons for creating such a list, we can pass no appropriate judgements. A quick comparison with our own taxonomies sheds light on why this list may not be as arbitrary as it initally seems.

The most common classification system in Western cultures - the one based on the alphabet - is probably the most arbitrary in existence today. It is based on the sequence of phonemes in an arbitrary linguistic sign, which is compared to an arbitrarily arranged list of all such phonemes. The result is a jumble of totally unrelated concepts, much more arbitrary than what we'd get if we applied the Chinese method. Can we call this system illogical and irrational? I think not, for its purpose is ease and speed of reference, which is a very reasonable purpose.

Another example from our own society: an encyclopedia that describes, for example, plants based on their genus and species, or their apparences, or something similar, is quite a modern invention, being no more than about 300 years old. One of the most interesting type of texts I've ever read are 16th - 17th century encyclopedias that all had one lofty and rational goal: a Baconian desire to name and describe everything that pertains to any given entity. What can be more rational and logical in an encyclopedia than describing all aspects of a given thing? Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, wouldn't such a book be in fact a paragon of Encyclopedias? And what was the result? A confusing mess of absurd information that mostly had nothing to do with anything: an amalgamation of physical descriptions, descriptions of uses, cooking recipes, seamen tales, myths, parables, anecdotes, even songs and poems. Books that had little or no practical value because it was impossible to make heads or tails out of the jumble that had been gathered in them. These books are much more arbitrary and confusing than what we'd get if we applied the Chinese taxonomy - yet the goal is both lofty and at least seemingly rational and sensible.

Such systems of thought as exemplified by the fictional Chinese encyclopedia seem illogical only as long as we fail to understand their inner structure, purpose and principles of composition. Of course the list is arbitrary to an extent, but not much more so than the ones we ourselves use. The only reason why our own taxonomies do not seem irrational and nonsensical to us is, unfortunately, just habituation.